 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Poverty in the USA
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:23 PM Janie, (((Big Hug)))... ...fir gettin' the the 1200th post... BTW, how many of yer clients drive Caddies??? I know... ...LOL... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:12 PM You're 60% of the way there. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:10 PM 2000? If it is, do I get a prize? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:04 PM Social safety net programs that provide for a minimum level of resources to meet the basic needs for food, clothing and shelter of non-disabled adults, and for families with dependent children when the parent(s) are not disabled are much trickier. A comprehensive national health care program would remove one significant basic need from the equation, and simplify the issue to some degree, but it is still very difficult and complex. This is where the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the rights and responsibilites of the group slam into each other like the tectonic plates along the Pacific rim. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:02 PM Just a couple thoughts... First of all, Kipp, you are correct that folks are weary of paying taxes and seeing that things aren't getting better for them... This is true of 95% of wage earners because the share that they get back in services doesn't equal the amount of money taken out of their pay checks... (Well, Bobert, where is it going???) Glad you asked... It is going to the upper 5%... Yes, what we have is a so-called trickel down economy but in reality it's trickling up and away from the working class and the poor... So, yeah, the average guy is purdy p.o.'d these days... Problem is is that he is blaming the wrong folks... It ain't the poor who are bleeding him... It's the rich... But the rich own the media and spend big PR $$$$'s to run all kinds of misinformation that distracts the workling class from the ***truth*** so we still have the sterotype welfare-caddillac lie being told which is a copmplete and total falsehood while the rich pillage and steal whatever they want... Janie will tell you the same thing... In mu 20 years in various programs I never met one poor person who owned a Cadillac... Not one and I'd dare say that over that time period I dealt with well over a thousand clients.... But we still have the right wing corportist spreading these lies to keep the working class off their backs... And to GUEST, yes, the health care system is completely broken... So is health insurance... The lesson which is now being learned by millions of working Americans is not to go to the doctor if they need to becuase by doing so the health insurers will raise your rate way beyond treatment... Yer better off just doing home remdies for anytrhing short of cancer or gun shots... I have learned that lesson myself over the last couple of years... Because I had a sciatic nerve situation which is controlled with stretching my insurnace company wanted to raise my monthly premium by over $1000... I think I'll be joining the 47 million without helath insurance real soon 'cause it was bad enough at $800 a month for two rerlatively healthy people and the $2000 a month is way beyond our means... But this is a game that"Boss Hog" has complete control of seince their is no Congressional oversight and even if Congress tries to do something we have a president who is perfectly willing to cancle it out with a signing statement so right now the working poor and the working middle class are screwed... This is why I feel that the next round of the revolution is very near... You can only squeeze folks but so hard and as hard as we have been squeezing the working poor which consists of mostly women and children you can bet that those just above them in terms of income are being equallu squeezed... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:07 PM Large means-tested programs in particular, are governed by rigidly applied rules and requlations. They lack flexibility. This means that some people end up taking advantage, and some people fall through the cracks. Given the need to be accountable, and the need to do as much as possible to assure equity and equality, this is a necessary evil of means-tested programs. History has proven that without these rules and requlations, which are closely monitored, too many people get denied services and benefits because of minority characteristics, or because their case worker doesn't like them, or people get services or benefits who are not eligible because of favoritism or political expediency. Big programs paint with a broad brush. Big programs address issues of social welfare on a broad, societal, aggregate scale. They do not have the capacity to deal with the nuances of individual situations. That is one reason why we need a national health care plan that is comprehensive and all-inclusive. It is also one reason why we also need more locally developed and/or funded policies and programs, and why we need for private charities to be truly privately funded. We need faith-based initiatives in our local communities, and we need for them to be completely divorced from government funding. That is the only way they will have the flexibility and discretion needed to fill cracks. At the very local level, the small monies available from rector discretionary funds are crucial to heading off personal disasters because a family fallen on hard times can't pay the rent on a storage unit where all their personal items have been moved during a period of homelessness, avoiding evictions and utility cut-offs, and paying the medicaid co-pay for prescription drugs when money has gone instead to replace the water-pump on the old car. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 07:21 PM Hi Guest, I hadn't seen your post before I hit the submit button, but how serendipitous that it follows yours. I had deleted a bunch of stuff about both Medicaid and the disability determination process before I posted. It was worth saying, but meant following too many tangents to include it. I suspect I know who you are. I often think of you and the experiences of several other USA mudcatters who are disabled or who have serious health problems and have to rely on Medicaid as I read and post to this thread. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 07:08 PM The only comprehensive social safety net program we have in the USA is Social Security. Social safety net programs need to be primarily federal programs. They should be either federally or Sate administered and predominantly federally supervised. They are most likely to be effective, fair and equitable if they are entirely federally funded. Federality also provides for the most fair and equitable redistribution of income that social safety nets require. Social Security, Medicare, and SSI are the the most comprehensive safety net programs we currently have in the United States. The minimum guaranteed income for the elderly and disabled should be set at a level that insures basic needs for food, clothing and shelter can be adequately met. This requires significant revision in the methods by which the federal poverty level is set, and also will require that levels vary by region. There should be a comprehensive national health plan that does not include co-pays that guarantees adequate medical care and prescription drug coverage, and that uniformly covers the entire population. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:12 PM There is quite a bit I could say here about the health system in the USA forcing me to stay poor just so we can be given a government-made gauntlet to run, and exasperating, unbending regulations with fiery hoops to jump through in order to get regular medical care for my wife mainly, and myself but I don't think I will say any more than this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 04:47 PM A national policy that can be reasonably effective in addressing issues of poverty must accomplish two things. 1. It must provide a broad and inclusive social safety net that guarantees its citizens a minimal acceptable level of resources to meet basic needs for food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. 2. It must support, promote, and sometimes create conditions that provide opportunites and incentives for individuals and local communities to be reasonably self-sufficient. (The Dickey's of the country are blind to the extent to wich they receive government 'welfare'.) The devil is in the details. While not mutually exclusive, these are two separate goals, and large, national programs need to give primary importance to one or the other. Programs that do not focus primarily on one of these goals over the other are doomed to be ineffective. Most of our national programs fail to recognize the distinction. I keep losing long posts to cyberspace so I'm going to break this up. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 30 Jun 07 - 01:39 PM The best indicator of poverty is hunger. The most startling fact is the number of children in the U.S. who are hungry. I'd like to know how AWG, kipp, or Dickie would go about solving this problem. My guess is that they don't give a damn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 12:40 PM A note here: I'm sure that I'm not the only Mudcatter who is lurking here. Interesting thread. I don't have the expertise or the experience to add to the subject but I would remind Kipp, AWG and Dickey that the title of this thread is Poverty in the USA. Which is a big subject in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 12:21 PM Kipp, I don't doubt that a very high percentage of people in homeless shelters are there primarily as a consequence of their own bad choices. And as long as we live in a society that values the right of the individual to make many of their own choices, social programs targeted at that population are going to have low success rates. I don't think that means those social programs should not exist, but expectations regarding what constitutes success should be realistic. I also don't think homeless shelters should be eliminated by virtue of the fact that many, if not most of their inhabitants, have mostly brought their own hard luck upon themselves. My position on this is purely value based. There are places in the world, and there have always been cultures living in environments where basic resources are scarce, and insufficient, or barely sufficient, to meet the needs of the population. There may come a time when the resources of this country are not sufficient to meet the basic needs of our population. when that time comes, it will then be necessary to consider who deserves to eat, and who does not. However, as long as this society has the resources to meet the basic needs of every man, woman and child living in this society, then everyone deserves access to enough food to eat and access to shelter, whether or not that person is an addict, a thief, an antisocial scumbag, or a freeloader. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:50 AM I have no idea how I managed for that entire post to look like a link. Only this http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/pov/new01_was supposed to be clickified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:48 AM Kipp, 31% of the US population lives on less than 200% of the federal poverty level. See http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/pov/new01_ The federal poverty level is set so low, that 200% is a more accurate representation of people who live in true poverty, and is the threshhold for eligibility for many, many means tested programs. 12.5 % of our population live below the actual poverty level. We are a wealthy nation. When these percentages are this high, it can not be rationally argued that societal conditions are not prime contributors, nor can it be argued that societal interventions are inappropriate or unneccessary. The characteristics of the people in homeless shelters are not representative of the characteristics of most of the population included in either the 100% or 200% of the federal poverty level, and it is a mistake to generalize your observations about the people in homeless shelters to the entire population living in poverty. I'm the majority of people who habitually rely on homeless shelters are severe addicts, mentally ill, or both. I have never argued, and neither has anyone else on this thread, that individuals are not responsible for the choices they make. I will strongly argue, however, that bad choices is not the primary reason that 31% of our population is poor. Among developed nations, we are at the bottom in % of income we pay in taxes. we are also at the bottom in social spending. Rapists, murderers, theives and internet trolls may also act superficially courteous. Good manners and good intent are not the same thing. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:24 AM Bobert, maybe I will let Dickie do your 'questionaire', since he is the one you are most obsessed with. I only want to see you answer his questions since he has the common courtesy and respect to answer yours. I don't really think a question about what % of people own the wealth in Haiti is too far off track, any more than some of the stuff you or Janie or anyone else comes up with from time to time. This is an open discussion about poverty in the USA, but a migration of the discussion to the issue of world poverty is not a far stretch. So now can you please just answer the question instead of going off on one of your 'tangents' you like to accuse others of. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:50 AM Bobert, Maybe the people are just tired of being taxed after they have worked hard all their life and as they get older they just have less and less and it is not only because of the big corporations but because they are being taxed for all the social programs that just don't work. And thoes not all but a good amount go thorough this and that program to quit the behavior that got them there in the first place drugs alohol dependency and still go right back the city's are loaded with drugs and drunks who somehow manage to get welfare or SSI or SSD and on top of that they are some of those that are selling drugs. Thing is nothing will change it just keeps getting worse and all the while more and more people become blind Kipp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 29 Jun 07 - 08:37 PM Okay, I want to talk about My Senator, Jim Webb... Yeah, he used to be a Republican... He was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy... He voted for George Bush on 2000... But then he started thinking about why it is that our country has not addresed the increasingly vast gap between the rich and the poor and decided that the Republicans weren't ever going to have any interst in dealing with the issue so he ran and was elected as a Democrat this past November... And this from a conservative and very much "red" state"!!! Well, he is having a difficult time jump starting the issue of poverty and income gaps within the Democratic Party... As I have mentioned, John Edwards has staked out this issue as the cenetrpiece of his campaign but, as yet, it hasn't taken any traction... I understand that "framing" is a difficult task and when the media is owned by folks who don't wnat this issue to gain traction, it becomes even more difficult for John Edwrads and my Senator Webb but... ...it's not hopeless... When the middle class catches on to the corportist/industrialist's game the tables will trun quickly... Movements are kinda like storms and can catch on real quicklyy in these days of ***tribalization*** where folks seem to be like schools of fish changing direction... I feel it... I hear it in the words of the very Republican people that live in my communtiy... Poeple are sick and tired of being taken advantage of... These are middle class people and I am beginning to see that it's going to take these folks daying, "We ain't takin' no more of yer crap" that will open up the dialogue that is needed to get the war on poverty back on course... Yeah, the current Democratic Party may not be up to the task right now but they can't possibly be stupid enough not to sieze on the discontent of the middle class and change the conversation... If not, then a viable 3rd party will take up the slack... I'd love to see that party being the Green Party that I have supported for a long time but I believe it has been trivialized so I am open to a new 3rd party.. No matter, the revolution has begun... This will get dealt with... The corportist/industrialists have history of not getting it until things get very uncomfy for them... That time is coming... Yes, our country has put off some important discussions... This one we have been having here in this thread is as important as any... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:21 PM Yo, AWG... I ain't intimidated by anyone here in Mudburg... Might of fact with the places I've worked in my life I think one would have to be hard pressed that I have ever been intimidated... The reason I don't answer Dickey's question is because they are stupid questions that have nuthin' to do with this discussion that are posted as nuthin' more than a distraction because Dickey has shown over and over and over in this thread and others that when he is in over his little dickey head that he just resorts to trying to disrupt the discussion... Much like LD kids who can't keep up with the class so they resort to anti-social behavior... Janie composed a purdy good case study on Dickey a while back here and from my years working with mentally ill people and people with personality disorders I think she nailed him... Now, AWG, seein' as you think I should lower myself and sacrifice the good work that people have put in this thread let me ask you a Dickey question and just top show you just how stupid this things can get. Here goes... So, AWG, do you think it is okay for folks to highhjack threads with meaningless tangental questions? Yes ____ No _____ See what I mean??? What does this have to do with poverty or the discussion as hand??? Well, nuthin' at all... That is my point... Intimidated??? Ha... Dickey's are like gnats... All Dickey has ever done here in Mudvile is try to change the conversation away from anything that might be critical of his hero, George Bush... Maybe you, AWG, would like to explain why he can't stay on topic??? Yes _____ No ______ Maybe you are Dickey??? Yes _____ No ______ Maybe a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half??? Yes _____ No ______ Maybe poor people choose to be born to poor families??? Yes ____ No _____ Maybe poverty is God's fault and we shouldn't mess with it??? Yes ____ No _____ Maybe Dickey isn't Dickey??? Yes ____ No _____ Get it yet, AWG??? Yes ____ No _____ Now, if you and yer buddy are quite finished with yer little juninilistic attempt to block this discussion then can we get back to the topic at hand??? Intimidated, my butt... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 29 Jun 07 - 12:11 PM I think that Dickie has some good point and should not be ignored he does notnot have all the answeres and niether does anyone else on this thread instead of pointing fingers because it does not fit your agenda there are examples all over where there are people and groups helping the poor to achive home owner ship . Here in Jersey where I live Martin House has rehabilated over 50 houses for home ownership it works with banks and corpoations to provide no interest loans. And the work with the people to help bring that about. It only works for some people but it has to be a thing they want Go ahead ask me more Kipp PS there is no need for the combative tone to this thread I would like to make the guess that none of us are children are we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:45 AM Sorry folks, got the problem fixed (although I'm not sure how,lol). Anyhow, as I was going to ask, why can't Bobert simply answer Dickie's question. To quote him..."Thanks for your swift reply. I know you won't dance around and use personal attacks to avoid answering this one. You are too professional for that." And your response... 'petty'. Dianavan's nosey response was posted by what appears to be an eight year old. (people know what petty means, by the way). I think Bobert may be intimidated by Dickie, otherwise just answer the question and move on. Makes for a much more 'grown up' conversation, not so much of a 'schoolyard' dust up. I'm still waiting for someone to respond with 'Na Na Na Na Na'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:30 AM Sorry for the previous post, having a keyboard problem, then accidentally hit enter. Cant use certain keys like question mark, keep getting this....É or è. Any ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:27 AM ^ÉÉÉÉÉÉééééééé,,...é;é.ééé...ééééÉéééÉÉÉÉÉÉ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 29 Jun 07 - 02:19 AM dianavan, I hope we meet someday. Have you ever considered coming to one of the Getaways? When I wasted my time with my last post, I was thinking, "Dickeyhead doesn't know what petty means, so I'll just demonstrate it. This post I'm doing right now is petty exemplified." And then with perfect timing, you post the definitions to make it clear. Bobert, FWIW, I agree. More later. Maybe. g'night. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:41 AM pet·ty 1. of little or no importance or consequence: petty grievances. 2. of lesser or secondary importance, merit, etc.; minor: petty considerations. 3. having or showing narrow ideas, interests, etc.: petty minds. 4. mean or ungenerous in small or trifling things: a petty person. 5. showing or caused by meanness of spirit: a petty revenge. 6. of secondary rank, esp. in relation to others of the same class or kind: petty states; a petty tyrant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 28 Jun 07 - 09:46 PM Okay, seein' as this thread has traversed the spectrum I'd just like permission to do a little tangent work here myself... Seems that the corportist/industrialists have put a few bucks into some PR company to come up with the next "buzz" word or phrase to scare off the progressives and it's "class warfare"... Oh, how scarey... Make hundreds of thousands of folks want to gather in a big city and run screaming from the giant bug like in the 50's horror movies... Problem is that what these PR folks have done is frame exactly what it comes down to and guess what, righties??? I don't hear the common man using the term at all like they used to use the term "liberal" which was the giant buig of it's day... The PR campaign just isn't gaining ground like the "liberal" bashing campaign and I think I know why... There are too many folks who think they are getting screwed by the corportist/idustrialists... So for any folks out there in Mudville who think that we shouldn't be collectively dealing with poverty 'cause we'd be practicin' "class warfare" then fine... Yeah, that is axactly what is going on here... Progressives can't run from this PR label but embrace it... Yes, it is going to take "class warfare"... Get over it and... ... get with it!!! BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 28 Jun 07 - 06:04 PM Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie - PM Date: 27 May 07 - 12:13 AM ....Still waiting for details of your 'fix' that does not alter the percentages and ratios of distribution of wealth and income that currently exist in this country. Janie Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey - PM Date: 30 May 07 - 12:33 AM Janie: You can keep on waiting.... "Hoist on his own petard" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 28 Jun 07 - 09:10 AM Not answering a simple question is petty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 28 Jun 07 - 07:38 AM ditto, d... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 28 Jun 07 - 03:02 AM petty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:10 AM Hey Bobert: When you and Janie get through whoppin each other on the back for knowing everything there is to know about the terribly complicated or simple to understand problem of poverty, Just answer one last question. Does the top 1% in Haiti own all the wealth like you said or do they own nearly half like the BBC said? ___ All the wealth ___ Nearly half the wealth. Thanks for your swift reply. I know you won't dance around and use personal attacks to avoid answering this one. You are too professional for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:54 AM Lost in cyberspace. A post (not a long one) I just spent over an hour on. I'm not even gonna try to reconstruct it. I agree Bobert. and there is no joy in the thought. It is going to take a revolution to bring about some very needed social change. but the costs are going to be high. Not too high for the gains. but no bargain basement sale, either. Given the quantity of resources needed, using present technologies, to provide a middle-class lifestyle to millions in the first world, it is clear that a comparable level of resources use and lifestyle cannot extrapolated to all the third world's people (even if we assume that improvements in technology will be made). If we accept that humankind should live in balance with nature's renewable stock of resources, and if we admit that the world's demographic future holds a population of 10 to 15 billion by the year 2050, it is obvious that our ideas about ourselves and our lives need to change.... a radical rethinking of everyone's lifestyle, and a re-visioning of our future, are in order (Porter and Sheppard 1998). This paragraph in particular resonates with me. It begs the question, just how far down the road am I willing to walk the walk in my own life? Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 07 - 08:40 PM Well, Janie, looks as if we've worn the folks out... Hope not...'Cause this discussion have been all over the map but it has also covered a lot of territory... I beleieve that John Edwards would benefit from reading it 'cause I don't thjink there are too many bases that havene't been covered here but... ...yeah... Bottom line it is about resources... Both in ***cause*** and in ***solutions***... Where we might split hairs on "root causes", they are not all that important in the larger picture of what does a wealthy country do to correct a glaring weakness in it's social fabric... It makes US look as if we are really not this great country afterall... I mean, we can send a man to the moon but can't figure out how to adequately feed on 4 kids outta 5??? Sad commentary... Good thread... No, great thread... Too bad that it's the so called compassionate conservatives who have a firm hold of both power and the microphone... Yeah, too bad... I am not feeling hopefull for our country... Seems that common sense and compassion have been highjacked by greed and more greed... Yeah, it ain't rocket science on things that need to be done that will hael elleviate poverty... There just isn't the will and that is because our democracy is badly broken and "rednecks" have the power... And they aren't going to give it up without a fight which brings me back to what I said hundreds of posts ago and that is that it's going to take a revolution to get their attention... (BTW, I have started another thread about just how our democracy has gotten so broken...) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 27 Jun 07 - 01:03 AM "Unintended consequences" is a rather familar concept, and one that planners and designers of policies in many fields try to be alert to. Perhaps it would be helpful to also consider 'unintended benefits." While poverty is certainly an objective reality, it occurs in a much larger social context than is generally acknowledged. High rates of poverty can be viewed as symptomatic of much more diffuse societal dysfunction that affects all, or nearly all, of a society in adverse ways. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 25 Jun 07 - 10:46 PM The following is cut and pasted from the link http://www.aag.org/Education/center/cgge-aag%20site/Population/lesson1_page3.html (found in one of my 6/24 posts if you want it clickified.) Dr. Lakshman Yapa, a geographer at Pennsylvania State University, offers yet another view. He acknowledges that rapid population growth can present challenges to nations that are still developing, but argues that poverty is not caused by there being too many people in a place. Instead, Yapa argues that poverty mainly results from misguided and destructive land-use policies and practices by the wealthy and powerful. For example, Yapa points out that multinational corporations and wealthy families often control large amounts of land in developing nations, forcing the poor and landless to live in overcrowded situations on marginal lands. To outsiders viewing images of poor and hungry people living in overcrowded conditions, it seems reasonable to blame their condition on out-of-control population growth rates. But Yapa argues that the world has enough resources to meet the basic needs of the poor, and that the rich and powerful countries of the world have created scarcity in developing regions by wastefully consuming huge amounts of resources to support luxurious lifestyles. Yapa (2000) believes that usage of the term "overpopulation" and "carrying capacity" contributes to a mindset that (a) takes attention away from an examination of how existing land and other resources are used, (b) minimizes the role of resource problems created by high consumption levels of wealthy people, and (c) transforms a segment of the population, usually the poor, into the source" of the problem. He and other like-minded scientists believe that the most effective way to meet the basic needs of the poor would be to implement policies that emphasize traditional forms of production, protect workers, and redistribute wealth and land to the poor. But does this mean that people living in wealthy, developed countries would have to sacrifice? Some scientists think so: Given the quantity of resources needed, using present technologies, to provide a middle-class lifestyle to millions in the first world, it is clear that a comparable level of resources use and lifestyle cannot extrapolated to all the third world's people (even if we assume that improvements in technology will be made). If we accept that humankind should live in balance with nature's renewable stock of resources, and if we admit that the world's demographic future holds a population of 10 to 15 billion by the year 2050, it is obvious that our ideas about ourselves and our lives need to change.... a radical rethinking of everyone's lifestyle, and a re-visioning of our future, are in order (Porter and Sheppard 1998). This provides a broader context in which to understand Dr. Yappa's thinking. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 25 Jun 07 - 10:36 PM I don't disagree with you at all, Bobert. But what he emphasizes, and what is not usually talked about at all, is that efforts to reduce poverty need to be much more broadly defined, and need to extent well beyond programs targeted at low income people. He is advocating a broadly multisystemic approach and has identified how issues of infrastructure may work to increase or decrease the costs of living and working. These are issues that effect everyone, not just poor and low-come families. He is very wholistic in his thinking, pointing out how deficits in urban infrastructure contribute to creating and maintaining an underclass. He is saying, lets look at unintended consequences. When we are planning infrastructure, economic development, and the like, let us also think about the effects policies and design of systems and services intended to benefit John Q Public may have with respect to helping or hindering people with low incomes. He is also talking about the need to consider sustainability in all public policies and projects. Failure to consider sustainability of economic conditions and already existing communities and neighborhoods in the planning processes of cities and counties fosters conditions that contribute to economic decline and poverty. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 25 Jun 07 - 06:36 PM I kinda wanted to return to my earlier thoughts about the article on Dr. Yapa's program at Penn State... Like I did say, aren't the things that his students are doing similar to what VISTA and CAP (Community Action Porgram) folks were doing in the late 60's and early 70's??? Well, yeah... Okay, maybe not with a larger world view but this is what we were kinda doing... As a CAP worker I almost lived in the housing project, Hillside Court, where I was assigned... I had some help from VISTA from time to time and we did try to orgainized child care coops so that mother could get away for a variety of reasons including job training... What I see in Dr. Yapa's program is the university and the parents of these students funding the same types of things that the governemnt once funded... Now that's okay but it really isn't a major paradigm change... No, a major paradime change would be for the governemnts as various levels create public/private partnerships with various industries that are willing to locate in areas where poor people live and create decent paying jobs for these folks... That, in MO, would be a paradigm shift... Face it, Yapa's kids = VISTA + CAP... Okay, I'll admit that I do think he is on to something in his larger visioon but his larger vision is a ***urban planning*** one and not a roadmap to end poverty... For that to happen, greater resources are going to have to be shifted toward the poor... Without that happening, Dr. Yapa's kids are fighting a loosing battel... And I am still very concerned that thye urban poor are being squeezed outta their neigborhoods.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 25 Jun 07 - 04:46 PM Yeah, d, at a time when the resources are needed the most the Bush administration has cut social programs just about where ever one looks... Of course, my pet peeve is child care that has now been frozen at 2004 levels at a time when more and more women with children have used upo their 5 year lifetime assistence and having to take crappy paying jobs and desperately need assistence in that area... It's so bad that it ought to be viewed as a human rights violation... Talk about "family values"??? All ther Bushites do is talk the talk but when it comes to walkin' the walk they write checks like men with no arms... It's disgusting... It is unChristian... It is punitive... It is short-sighted... About all it does is insure that the prison/industrial complex will be well funded for many years to come... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Uncle Boko Date: 25 Jun 07 - 02:53 PM It would be a good jape to jump the border from Texas into Mexico so I could see Irma Cetas again!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 25 Jun 07 - 10:28 AM From the alternetnet link: "From 2004 to 2006, President Bush and the Congress cut federal funding for public housing alone by 11%. Over the same period, more than 150,000 rental housing vouchers were cut." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 25 Jun 07 - 07:51 AM Okay, not a lot of time but I have now plowed thru the entire article and, well, it still comes down to resources... Yes, cumminty gardens are great... Yes, it's great to have Penn Stae kids living in the neighborhopods helping out but isn't that what VISTA and CAP programs "used" to do??? As for the row houses being more efficient... Yes, they are... In richmond, they torn down an entire community of *brick*row houses in the Fulton neigborhood and put up HUD ranchers which are now looking shabby because they were built with 2X4's and asphalt shingle roofs... The row houses coule have been renovated cheaper than what they did and still be standing 100 years from now... But nevermiond that... Another point is that in many urban areas the middle class and upper middle class people are moving back into the city into the row-house neighborhoods creating "scarcity" in those areas of the city... Washington, D.C. is a prime example... Adams Morgan is now middle class to rich... There aren't any affordable row houses left... They have been scooped up and now very pricey, like in the million dollar range... Same in areas of Southeast... Same in areas around the DC convention ceter on 6th ST which used to be nuthin' but row houses occupied by poor people... Nuff for now... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 25 Jun 07 - 01:00 AM re: home ownership. For some, yes. For many, no, or inconclusive. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/homeownership/liho01-12.pdf http://www.alternet.org/story/53826/?page=1 Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 24 Jun 07 - 10:38 PM Assisting low income families in attaining home ownership The Community Development Corporation of Brownsville (CDCB) is a private, 501(c)(3) non-profit community housing development organization (CHDO) . CDCB has been providing safe, sanitary affordable housing to the citizens of Brownsville, Texas since 1974. CDCB is the largest non profit producer of single family affordable housing for homeownership in the State of Texas. CDCB is governed by a 13 person, community based Board of Directors that serve on a volunteer basis to determine policy for the Corporation. CDCB serves the southernmost area of the United States – Cameron County, Texas, which shares its border with Mexico on the south, and the Gulf of Mexico on its east. CDCB's mission is to assist low income families in attaining home ownership. Through below market financing, quality construction, the use of efficient home designs, and targeted outreach. CDCB is able to provide safe, sanitary, affordable housing for homeownership to families earning as little as $8,000 per year. http://www.7thcode.com/cdcb/about.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 24 Jun 07 - 09:37 AM Very interesting, Janie... I haven't gotten thru the entire link but, yes, better and more modern urban planning is definately worth a hard look... They once called it "urban renewal" but didn't take it far enough in provided the resources related to employment and retail... It was just a "tear-down-this-slum-and-put-up-cheap-houses-that-don't-look-as-bad"... But to renew an entire community empowers people to work and have access to nutritious foods, better health care, etc... And I've long been an advoctae of urban planning as "work-live-play" where folks don't really have to get in cars and commute... This would enhance everyones quality of life and cut way down on our societies consumption of oil... This, in turn, would creat more resources to "renew" urban areas... Actaully, when you think about it, this is going to happen no matter what because we are spending way too much of our collective wealth commuting... I'll get back to the article later... Yet another gig this afternoon but ya' got to strike while the iron i$ hot... Bobert P.S. Very glad to see that you have turned the corner, AWG... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 24 Jun 07 - 01:57 AM Regarding ways to reduce poverty, Dr. Lakshman Yapa, at Pennsylvania State University, has set forth some interesting ideas and research. See the links below, especially the first in terms of the discussions on this thread. The second is a link to a page in the middle of several education modules regarding world population and resources. Offers a number of good questions to think about, research, explore. Rethinking Urban Poverty Dhttp://www.aag.org/Education/center/cgge-aag%20site/Population/lesson1_page3.html Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:26 AM AWG - Well, you finally got it right. "or they simply lack the resources." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:29 PM Well, a quick thankee, AWG... Would love to respond at lenght but I'm gettin' ready for back-to-back gigs this evening and have just a minute here to check in... I love the $$$ but I hate having to set up twice and do two performances... Wipes me out but... ...beats poverty (LOL)... Just had to stay on subject... somehow... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 23 Jun 07 - 01:38 PM The fact is, there will always be the rare occasions where a person under the poverty level finds a way to buy their own home. However, most poor people are simply not willing to make the huge effort and sacrifices to see this dream come true, or they simply lack the resources and don't know how to obtain them. Sometimes a person comes along who wants something more and is willing to do whatever it takes to see it happen or may be fortunate enough to make the right connections or meet the right people. I doubt Bobert would be foolish enough to say that 'no poor person could ever afford their own home', but the majority never will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 23 Jun 07 - 12:05 PM Rebecca was a 17-year-old mother of twins living in public housing and receiving benefits from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) when C.E.F.S. helped make changes in her life. Family and Community Development Specialist's Norma Daugherty and Rita Ray provided Kuhlman with case management to help her set personal goals. Rebecca improved her life with agency services such as Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, budget counseling, Teen Parenting Program services, and GED classes. In five short years, Rebecca Kuhlman moved from being a welfare recipient to receiving her GED, maintaining full-time employment and in 2001 by reaching her goal of home ownership. http://www.cefseoc.org/distinct03.htm Another "one person outta the millions" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 23 Jun 07 - 11:46 AM Bobert: Are you ready to answer yet or would you prefer to make personal attacks? Is it or is it not possible for poor people to obtain home ownership? ___yes ___no |
