BS: Poverty in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 11:42 AM

Well, it's one thing to have an opinion but when you make statement that the causes of poverty haven't been discussed when you really haven't read the "entire" thread then that is "ignorance"... Thta;s not meant to be a put down but an observation...

Okay, it's like getting to a basball game late and the score is 1-0 and you don't have any idea how the run was scored but you are peefectly willing to say that the folks who did see how the run was scored don't know how it was scored either???

We are all ignorant about lots of stuff and that's okay until we profess to be up to speed when we really don't have a clue...

Your opinions are perfectly welcome, however, but if you are going to make statements about stuff that has or has not gone on in this ling thread, I'm sorry, but you have to read, ***and comprehend***, the thread in its entirity...

This ain't a rant... Maybe a suggestion... But no rant...

Believe me, when I rant, folks who have been 'round know it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 12:02 PM

"Nobody has been discussing anything about poverty since I offered my opinion yesterday."

You getting it now!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 12:22 PM

Thanks, Barry. I get it, when someone offers sensible solutions to a problem, that's a 'no-go' in this thread. Gotcha. And Bobert, your'e ranting again. P.S. *** AWG wondering when, if ever, someone will get this discussion back to the issue of poverty. Wow, what a concept, sticking to the subject. ***

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:04 PM

Anybody that disagrees with Bobert and his "facts" or statistics (which he caims are for losers) is automatically branded a *************shill************** working for Boss Hogg which is another straw man created by Bobert.

A very nice attempt at creating class warfare using straw man, ad hominem and red herring debating falacies.

Take for instance this "fact" that Mr. I come by all my stuff the hard way Bobert cut and pasted from a left wing propaganda site:

"The $17,530 earned by the average Wal-Mart employeee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of four...."

CHICAGO â€" The Illinois Legislature wasted no time heeding the national voters’ mandate, overwhelmingly passing a bill to raise the state’s minimum wage from $6.50 an hour to $7.50 effective next July. The bill, which Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he looks forward to signing, will make the Illinois minimum wage one of the nation’s highest.

The measure provides for the minimum to increase 25 cents a year until it hits $8.25 an hour in 2010.

According to figures released by Blagojevich’s office, the wage increase will boost the average annual income for nearly 650,000 full-time minimum wage workers and their children from $13,520 to $15,600 next year. By 2010, the yearly pay for a full-time minimum wage earner will be $17,160.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/10286/1/351/

Seems to me that Walmart is four years ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:07 PM

A sign of insanity is doing what you've always done while expecting to get different results.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:21 PM

It seems that Dickey has a similar perspective to that of our old friend, MG. He has just skipped the profanity. Both he and AWG aren't worth the bandwith. AWG won't even read the thread and complains about what hasn't been discussed. They're both trolls. Why do I bother?

I'm outa here. Never to respond to Dickie or AWG, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM

Well, it's kinda hard to get it back, ahhhh, 'cause it's now obvious that we have a couple new kids in the class who aren't up to speed and that has kinda thrown the class a curve ball... I mean, most threads that discuss serious issues don't have to deal with this... Yeah, there are occasional trolls, which get ignored and the discussion continues but in this case, many of us are at a loss as to whether or not we should rediscuss that apparently the new kids haven't taken the time to discuss, treat the new kids as trolls or just sit back and see if the new kids will make the attempt to get caught up...

And by making generalized statements about the posting of various people, myself included, doesn't really demonstrate, to me that is, that the new kids are ***serious*** about joining in the discussion...

So, let's talk a little bit about the 1996 Welfare Reform...

In it there was money budgeted for child care for working parents (almost exclusively women)... This was all fine and good ezcept what the legislation didn't do was to allow that pool of money to grow with the number of parents who went to work and what has happened is that with newer parents having used up their ADFC assistence and having to take any lousy paying job they can find the money for child care is being cut back for the parents who have tried to play by the rules and are now in a crisis situation with many not being able to ***afford*** to work???

Huh???

Yeah, back to our $8.15 an hour mother who has been recieving vouchers to pay for child care and not being able to make ends meet and now she is told that her voucher will only cover 70% of need... This ain't to difficult a math quaetion here.... If @ $8.15 an hour one can't make the ends meet with child care vouchers, if you cut the value of the voucher then you have worsened this women's situation...

Some might say, "Hey, lady, get a better job" or "Hey, lady, go back to school so you can get a better job" but for those of us who have worked in social work and for those of us who haven't but have some understanding of what it's like to be a woman with 3 kids, an $8.15 job that she once thought she was lucky to find, there is the very sad reality that it is virtually impossible...

(Are you saying that it is impossible, Bobert???)

No, I'm saying that the sytem isn't designed to allow very many women like this to figure a way out... There aren't enough resources being thrown in these parent's (women's) direction for that to happen...

Like I've said before: The right wing loves to say that "you can't solve problems with money" but as they themselves are the ones who have corraled the vast majority of America's wealth, how would they know??? No, this is what Hitler referred to as a "Big Lie"... We've all heard it, over and over... It is thr ight winged mantra... Menawhile the right wing has it's hands in everyone elses pockets...

No, before this thread got slightly highjacked, this is what we were talking about.... It does come down to money...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

I think Dickey makes a very good point. However, with all due respect to everyone else, 'poverty' is only a word. Just a word used to describe a citizens 'rank' on the economic scale. Many poor people are happy and healthy. Many 'rich' are unhappy and unhealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:47 PM

". . . 'poverty' is only a word."

It's obvious, AWG, that you've never experienced it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:53 PM

Hello Don, it depends what you mean by poverty. Are you talking about a level of income, or a lifestyle. The 2 can be mutually exclusive. Please try to be more specific. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:10 PM

Your question, AWG, tends to prove my point. Poverty is not a "lifestyle."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:20 PM

To quote Bobert ... 'Well, myslef, I've heard Bill Cosby a few times an' what he basically says is "pull yourselves up by your boot straps"... He isn't into programs... Hey, he's a rich guy, ain't he??? He is no spokesman for black folks... He represents the ruling class...' He represents the 'common-sense' class, if you ask me. Americans whine about taxes, are about an inch from causing a world-wide economic collapse, and are holding record deficits, but people like Bobert want a whole raft of new social programs to help the lazy. Hey, I don't mind helping those who truly need it, therein lies the rub. Who IS that ??

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:23 PM

Don, to quote you...Your question, AWG, tends to prove my point. Poverty is not a "lifestyle."

That was MY point all along, poverty is not a lifestyle, just a word do describe a level of income. And what WAS your point, you never made one.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:44 PM

"Lifestyle" is generally a matter of choice. Poverty is not. Unless a person has joined Holy Orders and takes a vow of poverty (in which case, his or her basic needs are met by the order to which they belong), poverty is not a matter of choice. You seem to think it is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:48 PM

Well Don, if poverty is not a matter of choice, why discuss it ? If poor people have no choice but to be poor (according to you) then we might as well give up, nothing will ever change. My arguement clearly states that poverty IS a choice. It's people like you, Don, that are keeping them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:01 PM

AWG, our philosophies are worlds apart. We apparently don't even speak the same language.

Goodbye.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:02 PM

"Americans whine about taxes, are about an inch from causing a world-wide economic collapse."

This is of course a vast simplification. Take into account the huge defecit caused by over-extended credit + money spent to fuel the war industry + tax breaks to the rich and off-shore tax havens, and most of you can figure it out. Once again the poor are being blamed for poor fiscal management.

Here's a solution. Read the above.

Re-distribute the wealth by providing jobs
Raise the minimum wage
Provide daycare
Stop pouring tax dollars into the corporate/military complex.

Stop making excuses for a govt. that isn't doing their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:17 PM

Very well put, Dianavan. That's what Ive been so patiently waiting for all this time, someone to come up with solutions, not just rhetoric. Now, if Don could only take your lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:20 PM

That's where I've been all along, AWG. Obviously you're new here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:22 PM

Guests coming momentarily for Easter dinner. I may or may not be back to this discussion later.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:26 PM

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty."

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM

Anybody remember 'Guest, G.' from a 'poverty' thread a year or so ago? Conservative. Very well-informed and thoughtful. Had a good grasp of the issues. I valued his perspective in spite of not agreeing with it. A well-informed opinion is always worth listening to.   

Dianavan, like you, I'm outta here.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:37 PM

"the sytem isn't designed to allow very many women like this to figure a way out"

What system is that Bobert? Is it your straw man system that is to blame? Yes, keep on feeding that to the poor folks and sooner or later they will be brainwashed into believing you and quit trying. You can't beat this straw man system I am telling you exists, this Boss Hogg that is responsible for your being poor.

Now you have elected your self to the office of lecturer. I am not in your self proclaimed class Bobert.

You clearly exhibit the same characteristics you attribute to Mr Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:48 PM

Poverty Facts:
Every 43 seconds in the United States a child is born into poverty
Every 53 minutes in the United States a child dies from causes related to poverty
In 2002, the official poverty threshold, as defined by the federal government, for a family of four was $18,250. Yet, most researchers agree that a basic family budget for a two-parent, two-child family ranges from $27,005 a year to $52,114, depending on the community.


* Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau


Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 03:51 PM

National poverty data are calculated using the official Census definition of poverty, which has remained fairly standard since it was introduced in the 1960s and is useful for measuring progress against poverty. Under this definition, poverty is determined by comparing pretax cash income with the poverty threshold, which adjusts for family size and composition. 1 In 2005, according to the official measure, 37 million people, 12.6 percent of the total U.S. population, lived in poverty (Table 1).

Is poverty different for different groups in the population?
The poverty rate represents an average over the entire population, and does not really tell us who, in particular, is well off, who is worse off. For that, it is necessary to examine poverty levels for particular groups. Most notably, blacks and Hispanics have poverty rates that greatly exceed the average. The poverty rate for all blacks and Hispanics remained near 30 percent during the 1980s and mid-1990s. Thereafter it began to fall. In 2000, the rate for blacks dropped to 22.1 percent and for Hispanics to 21.2 percent—the lowest rate for both groups since the United States began measuring poverty.

The Current Population Survey, from which the poverty statistics are drawn, implemented a new question in 2003 to collect information on race, allowing individuals to report one or more races. There is no way of knowing how people who reported more than one race would have reported their race under the old question. Table 1 shows that those who defined themselves as black only or as black and some other race had the highest poverty rates—around 25 percent. Among those of Hispanic origin, who can be of any race, the poverty rate was 21.8 percent. The poverty rate for Asians was 11.1 percent.

Among children under age 18, 17.6 percent, 13 million children, lived in poverty. (See Table 1 and also the FAQ, How Many Children Are Poor?) The poverty rate for those over 65, which in 1959 exceeded the overall poverty rate, fell below it beginning in 1982. In 2005, poverty rose slightly for this group—the rate was 10.1 percent. The poverty rate for whites who were not Hispanic was below the overall poverty rate from 1959 through 2003. In 2005 it was 8.3 percent.

In 2005, the poverty rate for families was 9.9 percent, comprising 7.7 million families. Of all family groups, poverty is highest among those headed by single women. In 2005, 28.7 percent of all female-headed families (4 million families) were poor, compared to 5.1 percent of married-couple families (2.9 million families).

Poverty levels also differ depending on where people live. The metropolitan poverty rate differs greatly between suburbs and the central city. In 1979, the average central city poverty rate was 15.7 percent; at its highest point, in 1993, it was 21.5; by 2005 it was 17.0 percent, almost twice the rate for the suburbs (9.3 percent). Poverty in rural areas is not negligible either; in 2005, 14.5 percent of people living outside metropolitan areas (that is, in the countryside and small country towns) were poor.

The poverty rate also varies by region and within regions. In 2005 it was greatest in the South, at 14.0 percent, and lowest in the Midwest and Northeast, at 11.3 percent, and between the two at 12.6 percent in the West. Adjoining states may have radically different levels of poverty. In 2005, the poverty rate in the state of Maryland was 9.7 percent—yet in the adjacent District of Columbia, it stood at 21.3 percent.

from

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 04:18 PM

It's called "corporate America" which by no menas should be confused with capitalism because of its coziness with the governemnt, which it, for all practical purposes, owns lock, stock and barrel...

The real "welfare class" in this country are these corrupt corporations that make the rules to extract more and more from the working class and take more and more, in terms of cutting funds from the programs that were once designed to help folks out of poverty, from the poor...

Meanwhile, our corrupt governemnt just goes along with the highest bidder... The poor don't have lobbiest... They don't make the big cmapaign contributions... They have beeen rendered powerless and Peace is entirely correct that a sustained corrupt system to guarentees a large peasant class is ripe for crime (which we now have which is growing) but also "revolution"... It has happened over and over throughout mankind's history and the US is not exempt from it happening here...

But like I ahve pointed out, it won't start with the folks who have allready been beaten down mentally but will happen with Southern and Midwestern man who finnally figures out that he has been screwed and that he can no longer make ends meet... See, I know Southern Man purdy well having spent all my life around him and, yeah, he is very resistent to change and about the only way that he will change is if he is backed into a corner and he figures out who is doing the backing... Up to now, corporate America has used all kinds of PR ploys to get Southern Man drenkin' his Budweizer, watching NASCAR and listenin' to country music and I have to give corporate Amercica credit where it is due... It continues to work but corporate America (the system) isn't throwing 'nuff bones & taters at Southern Man these days... The off shoring, the out sourcing and the two tiered labor agreements are jsut beginning to hurt Southern Man where he don't like to be hurt and that is his wallet... Corpoarte America saw this coming so they thought they could ***lend*** their way out of it but now Southern Man is in debt up to his knees and wondering just what the Hell is going on...

So, yeah... Revolution is a very real possibility... The US is one Dr Martin Luther King away from Southern Man connecting the dots... Oh sure, as in the past cororate America will assasinate the next Dr. King, as they did the last time around, but once the seed is planted and Southern Man gets it corporate America won't find a PR firm that will turn it around...

Are there any other scenerios???

Well, yes and no... It's gonna come down to a redistribution of wealth one way or another...

And this ain't "Animal Farm" here... When the playing field is level and the laws are passed for the good of our entire society there will be no reason for future revolutions of this magnitude... And this ain't got one danged thing to do with the Democratic party which is just as subject to pressures of corprate America as are the Repubs...

You ask what is the system... I've answered it... Pure and simple....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 04:36 PM

Good answer Bobert. I tend to agree. Poor people need breaks but not handouts. Most of all they need an education and exposure to family values beginning when they are young, not as a stopgap measure when they are stuck in the rut.

The Institute for Research on Poverty

Has poverty changed over time?

In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39.5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12.1 percent. As a result of a sluggish economy, the rate increased slightly to 12.5 percent by 1971. In 1972 and 1973, however, it began to decrease again. In 1973, the poverty rate was 11.1 percent. At that time roughly 23 million people were poor.

In 1975 the poverty rate increased to 12.3 percent. It then oscillated around 11.5 percent for the next few years. After 1978, however, the rate rose steadily, reaching 15.2 percent in 1983. Thereafter it remained mostly higher than 13 percent. In 1993 it reached a new high of 15.1 percent, and then began to fall slowly. In 2000, 31 million people were poor (11.3 percent of the population). In 2001 the number of poor and the poverty rate both rose as economic difficulties moved into recession, and the rate has continued to rise; in 2003, 35.8 million people were poor by the official measure of poverty. By 2005, the number had risen to 37 million people (12.6 percent of the population.

Poverty using different measures of income

The existing official measure of poverty has been widely criticized. Under the procedures by which the official poverty rate is calculated, only cash income is counted in determining whether a family is poor; cash welfare programs count, but benefits from noncash programs, such as food stamps, medical care, social services, education and training, and housing are not included. Taxes paid, such as Social Security payroll taxes, and tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, are also excluded from poverty calculations. Because government spending on means-tested noncash benefits and tax credits has increased more rapidly than spending on means-tested cash benefits over the years, ignoring noncash benefits is an increasingly serious omission if we want a broad picture of the impact of government programs on poverty.

In 1995 a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published an influential report on revising the poverty measure (Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, edited by Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael). The Census Bureau has calculated alternative poverty rates using various experimental adjustments to the official poverty rate. It has, for example, expanded the definition of income to take into account some noncash income, including government benefits. The experimental poverty measures are the subject of an issue of the IRP newsletter Focus (volume 19, no. 2, Spring 1998, "Revising the Poverty Measure", pdf, 64 pp.), were discussed in an April 1999 IRP conference, and were the topic of a June 2004 workshop hosted by the Committee on National Statistics of the NAS. Papers presented at the workshop reviewed the effects of possible changes in the measure, drawing on the decade of research that has followed the publication of Measuring Poverty.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm

The Census Bureau's poverty report for 2002 estimated the effects of government programs on poverty using experimental measures. For example, it compared the official measure of poverty with measures based on recommendations of the 1995 NAS panel. The panel suggested, among other changes, adjusting the poverty measure to account for geographic differences in housing costs, counting noncash benefits as income, and subtracting from income some work-related, health, and child care expenses. Using alternative definitions of poverty based on the NAS study, the poverty rate for 2002 was in general higher than under the official measure, depending on the particular definition of medical costs and on whether geographic differences were taken into account (see the 2002 Poverty Report, Table 7, "Alternative Poverty Estimates"). Not all groups are affected uniformly, however, when the poverty definition changes.

There is considerable disagreement on the best way to incorporate medical care in a measure of poverty, even though medical costs have great implications for poverty rates. But costs differ greatly depending upon personal health, preferences, and age, and family costs may be very different from year to year, making it hard to determine what exactly should be counted. Subtracting out-of-pocket costs from income is one imperfect approach, but if someone's expenses are low because they are denied care, then they would usually be considered worse off, not better off. If the value of Medicaid or Medicare benefits is included, should not the value of private insurance also be included? And although poor persons are clearly better off with medical coverage, such benefits, unlike cash, cannot be used by recipients to meet other needs of daily living.

Including the value of housing is equally controversial. How should the respective value of rented and owned housing be measured? Including the equity value of housing would alter the distribution of poverty according to age, because of the large numbers of elderly who are homeowners.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 05:42 PM

Exact point I was trying to make about the DC area... Yeah, where as some of the new kids in class think that $8.15 an hour for a mom with 3 kids isn't poverty it disagree... When one does the math, $8.15 in the DC area with it's high cost of even slum housing is very much a poverty wage...

If we are to look at ways of helping folks escape the cycle of poverty we are going to have to have programs that "subsidize" or we are going to have to enact laws requiring employers to pay "livable wages"... One way or the other... Or maybe a combination of the two... There are small mon 'n pop businesses that just don't have that corporate America profit margain that cannot afford to pay a "livable wage"... I'm one of them... Yeah, even though I pay my two employeees well over the minimum wage if I had to pay them a wage that I *thought* was a livable wage, meaning they could afford a house, a car, health insurance, college fund then with what I make in terms of profit I would be in a loss situation... But corporate America isn't in this siutation and they can pay.... And they can be requird to hire folks right here in America rather than outsorce jobs...

So I'd be willing to look at some kind of subsidy/corpoarte-regulation system where programs are restroed that are intended to help folks that want a better life have the opportunities to have one... This would be some movement toward "social justice" and give people some hope... The worst thing I saw during my years in social work is what hopelessness and despair do to people's motivational level... It kills it...

A good read about what happens to folks when they get beaten down is a book by historian Kwenneth Stampp entitled "The Pecular Institution" where he taslks about the sytemic and institutional thinks that were done to "manage" slaves and these things weren't purdy and given what most folks think about the hiostory of our country were downright Draconian...

Some of those same things are being done to our poor today...

America does have a "soul" that is much more righteous than it is showing today...

Like I said, we've beaten our poor into submission... They have given up... There is no pursuit of happiness... There is no equal opportunity.... There is about what the black among us got from the Emancipation Procalmation: Ya' got nuthin', We ain't given you nuthin'... But yer free... Free to do what???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 07:24 PM

A start would be, not only a national chid care program but also a national health insurance plan with a sort of sliding scale. The poorer one is the sicker they are lible to become, the same goes for the kids, which ends up as a burden on the state, the present health care system, the local ecomomies & end's up effecting us all. But this would be a career stopper for the political rascal that dared put forth this issue. The AMA, the insurance industry, the Hospital networks & others would be in an uproar, even though it would benifit the nation as a whole as well as help to solve the poverty issue.
Dickey posted above a track of poverty from the 50's onward. If one were to add on the left out factors & put them into the same equation I would bet that the raise & fall of the true levels would closely follow the same rise & fall levels of the social programs that previously dealt with poverty but ended up cut or scaled back. Me belief is that those programs did work, had made a very big dents in the poverty levels. I know that growing up & taking advantage of the available programs at that time made a world of difference for the whole community. Today without those programs I believe that these same communities are dying without them. The drug & alcohol abuse, the crime rate, infant mortality rate, child pregnancies, homelessness rates & the rate of the poor youth signing up to fight wars for lack of better employment are shyrocketing while education levels are dropping, the level of health care is disappearing, the prisons systems are bursting at the seams and it seems to me that the nation's economy benifits from this situation. The benifits include an undereducated labor force destained to low competive wages along with a labor force that gets no health insurance & their costs get passsed on for the rest to subsidize. What also comes of this is a class of people that will vote as manipulated by their needs for survival dictate. They cost very little to maintain & when they do contribute they put up more than their fair share of the (tax) burden. My belief is that as the gap between the poor & the rich grow wider that this will eventually suck in & include the working classes also. The tendency to tip the scales so that the rich & powerful will, if not already, become a very small elite with control over a much poorer & huge percentage of the population. This divide is happening today & will continue with more becoming poorer unless there's a change in policy. It seems to me that the war on poverty is an issue that overlaps & it'll take more than just money, education & programs, hope, values & internal incentive, that won't be enough. There's also, as I said above, the perception of the poor by not only themselves but by society as a whole. Without a change in the national image of the underclass they will stay & remain as the underclass forever being blamed for their situation as their own fault. Instead we should be having a national attitude that sees this as every one's problem & something that everyone needs to proudly kick in with a hand to surrmount what should become a national achievment& goal. But then there are those that say let 'em eat cake, they need to pull themselves up by their boot staps when they've no boots & those that say the bastards are just lazy.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 07:35 PM

"My belief is that as the gap between the poor & the rich grow wider that this will eventually suck in & include the working classes also."

Thats exactly right, Barry. Thats why the Average White Guy is so afraid of poverty. He knows he's only a paycheck away. He thinks he can maintain his middle class status by denigrating the poor and calling them lazy. If only I work hard, says he, I won't be as poor as they are. He's in for a big surprise. Especially if he keeps voting for the neo-conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 08:11 PM

Exactly, d...

Those "average white guys" are who I was referring to as "Southern Man" in my post above... Southern Man lives everywhere... Not just the South and these are the very people who Boss Hog should be very afraid of because these are the folks who when they turn on you, you ain't gonna get them back without major sacrifices...

And Barry...

Right on... Yes, therwe is a correlation between spending on programs and poverty.... I believe that there are some folks here who either are or were very recently of the opinion that what we've been talkin' about is some kinda "handout system"... That won't work... You know it, d knows it, Janie knows it and I know it... Yes, folks talk about education... Fine... But in order to get an education it ***does*** involve both health care and child care and some renatal assistence...

When I was in socail work I never met a mother who wanted to be worse off in 5 years... It's just hard... Heck, it's hard enough for middle class families to get their kids educated...

But theunderlieing problem is jobs... The "system", as define above, isn't manufacturing jobs with livable wages right now no matter how qualified the general population...

This is the other half of the contract... We are going to have to put some laws on the books that force corporations to pay lvable wages to workers where ever those workers might be... If they had to do that then they would hire Americans and there would be hope within the rabnks of the poor that making the sacrifices to get training or education would have a pay-off...

Right now, what is the incentive... Poor folks ain't stupid and they are looking at the working class and seein' it getting screwed and thinking, "Hey, why bother"...

So like I siad before... We need progtrams and we need to reel the corporations back in...

If we are not willing to do that I think that the US will one day look very much like Haiti where the rich live like prisoners in their compounds and cannot leave without body guards...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 09:46 PM

Wow, I actually owe you guys an apology. Well, except Dianavan, you are too political, and not realistic enough. But everyone else, thumbs up !!

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

Almost scared to comment because I admit to not having read the whole thread -- and am too tired to right now. But coming from UK, I think one of the huge issues is that Americans don't DEMAND national health as a basic right. When you talk to Europeans who have a health system they simply don't understand why people don't rise up and demand basic health care. It seems to me that ever since I came to the US, one of the key things I have always had to think about, plan about, worry about etc etc is health care. How WONDERFUL if one were sick one could go to the Doctor, as it is in many other countries of the world, without worrying about how in hell you are going to pay for it and for the prescription. If that were dealt with it seems to me that the positive effects would permeate through society and so many things would be better.....it is EASIER to hold on to your job when your health is under control..

Please note that I am not naive enough to suggest this would be FREE but if basic wellness were offered and paid for out of taxes that everyone pays, the wealthy could go off and buy enhanced coverages if they so wished -- but the poor would at least get the basics.

Good night one and all - I have a busy full late day tomorrow.....

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:26 PM

Barry, you've got me to thinking about the difference in a social safety net and a welfare-to-work program. The enabling legislation for just about all of the programs of the 60's and 70's was found in assorted titles of the Social Security Act. The Food Stamp program was enabled by it's own act, and to this day is housed under USDA instead of HHS. They were basically updated versions of New Deal programs and were designedprimarily to be 'safety net' programs. aOver time, work incentives and punishments were tacked on, find of willynilly, but they were not designed to be welfare-to-work
programs.

Today, the programs are welfare-to-work programs. As somebody already said, TANF has replaced AFDC. the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs have had rules cobbled onto to them rather than a major overhaul.

I just bored myself to sleep. I'm going to bed. I'll be back to finish this unless it gets diverted by unintelligent life forms.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:00 PM

Now I see Bobert's agenda. He wants the government to subsidize his business so he can make even more money. Corporate welfare is OK for Bobert Incorporated but not for Exxon and Walmart.

Do you pay them as much as Walmart? Do you put money in a 401K for them like Walmart?

Well the good thing about America is you can start out a pauper and end up a Billionaire. How did Sam Walton, John Cash Penny or Ray Croc start out? A different era you say? How about Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison the owner of that evil $300M, 454 foot yacht start out?

"Ellison was born in New York City to Florence Spellman, a 19-year-old unwed mother who asked that her aunt and uncle in Chicago, Lillian Spellman Ellison and Louis Ellison adopt him when he was nine months old. Larry did not learn the name of his birth mother or meet her until he was 48; the identity of his biological father is unknown."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison

By the way your left wing cut and paste facts are exaggerated and wrong again:"Ellison owns the fourth largest yacht in the world named "Rising Sun" which reportedly cost over $200 million to build. Rising Sun is 452.75ft (138 m) long."

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:01 PM

A whole ten people in a nation of 330 million. What ARE the odds?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:16 PM

About 1 in 33 million, if the numbers are correct. By the way Dickie, very well put. But how did those guys do it if all they did was sit around collecting handouts ? I mean, hard work certainly isn't an option, is it??

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM

You guys give a whole new dimension to the word "callous". Hard work is an option, of course, and not only an option but to the truly poor, it is a fact of life. I would hazard a guess, Mister AWG, that the migrant poor you see up and down the San Joaquin, doing manual agricultural labor, are working ten times as hard in a day as you are, and earning less than a tenth as much. There is a DIFFERENT variable at work, which men of your ilk like to roll into the notion that the poor don't work hard. How long has it been since you worked for minimum wage? Did you try to support anyone else by doing so? Have you ever watched your own children go hungry or go without health care because you work with your muscles at minimum wage and don't have any cash to spare?

I doubt you have experienced any of these things, nor have you talked to anyone who has -- that's my guess, and it is about as justified as yours elsewhere about Peace working. In other words, I pulled it out of my ass. How'd I do?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:28 PM

Apparently Larry Ellison's adoptive parents weren't poverty stricken and Bill Gates wasn't the least bit poor (He went to a private school).

Thats eight to 330 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:41 PM

I see your point Amos, and it looks to me like maybe I should re-iterate my stand to you. What your'e basically saying is that there are poor people who can't afford to feed their children because they don't make enough money. Fair enough. However, after separating those who 'fell on hard times', and I realize this happens, we are left with those who are just lazy and would rather collect welfare and other handouts courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. And they number in the millions, dont kid yourself. Those are the ones I have been talking about from the beginning ( other members are happier labelling me a 'monster' who doesn't care about poor people, and that is simply not the case. I grew up watching my father work 2 jobs for years so we could have a decent life. We barely got by, and I never knew what it was like to be 'spoiled', like so many of you think. Ive been working since I was 11 years old, so that I could have a few of the things so many of my friends enjoyed. This isn't meant to be a 'sob story' by any means, but be aware that I know what its like to just get by and it was only by hard work and sacrifice. And I see so many people sitting at home collecting welfare and scamming the system it makes me sick, when there are plenty of jobs available if one is willing to work for 8 or 9 dollars per hour.   Youre probably not going to like this, but I think people who cannot support their children shouldn't have them until they are able to. (not including the 'fell on hard times' cases, of course). As far as solutions go, I have several viable and practical ones, using my own country as an example. First would be raising the minimum wage (which Canada is doing as we speak), second would be government programs to encourage people to educate themselves and gain skills, third would be to re-allocate some of the billions of dollars the government spends on frivolous and wasteful programs into ones that help those who truly need it, fourth would be to get the Republicans out of the whitehouse, they are spending the USA right down the toilet, and fifth would be to put the brakes on the absurd number of immigrants entering the USA each and every day !! Anybody with solutions to add....?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:22 PM

I would like to see a program in place that encourages people receiving social assistance to go to school and get training for jobs available in their area. It would be costly, but to quote Bok, the then President of Harvard (and I read he was quoting someone else), "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

A program of that nature would allow an adult to receive funding to support her children and herself while having her education paid for. I'd suggest making it work like student loans, with maybe a ten-year amortization of the debt, no interest.

I know from many years back that the cost of keeping one person in jail in Canada (I think it referred to maximum security institutions) was around $55,000/year. I always thought that investing half that at the right time could have saved millions of dollars, to say nothing of lives. I feel much the same about social assistance. The general argument against it is "Why should so-and-so receive a free ride?" Well, so-and-so would not be. We recognize that sometimes people need a helping hand. Canada gives interest free loans to some countries through CIDA because as citizens we recognize that we DO have a responsibility to actually BE our brothers/sisters' keepers (although I think helpers would be a better term to use.

The solution is not simplistic. It's just one that is simple. I cannot buy into a culture of "work or die". I think despite this type of program there would still be people who due to mental illnesses or physical inabilities would require financial assistance. Hell, give it to them. But I have had too many discussions with single moms or dads, and in fact all they usually need is that one break and they are happy to leave social assistance behind for good.

I could give anecdotal 'evidence', but those who think 'welfare' should not exist in the first place would just discount it, and those who believe we should help fellow humans already know the stories from their own work or lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:09 PM

I think both of you have excellent ideas on these issues.

AWG, thanks for the clarification; sorry I got a little bit hissy there.

I too have known folks who gamed the welfare system, and I have no respect for them. Nor, I think, do they have much for themselves. I think that deep down, the real origin and well-spring of self-esteem and morale is personal productivity of some kind, no matter what kind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:11 PM

First of all, and Janie will confirm this, there isn't any welfare program for lazy people... Might of fact, there is now a cutoff date on anyone recieving welfare.... No one can just wake up one morning and say to themselves "Hey, work sucks... I think I'll just go down to the wlefare department and get me a check"...

And, contrary to the opinions of many folks who rerally don't know much about welfare programs in general, there has never been such a program...

And, yo Dickey...

Yes, you have it... I do expect the government to subsidize my business... They subsideize the Halliburtons and the Exxons and big-agriculture so why shouldn't I expect some help too...

Here is the ***reality***... I know that you don't always do well with reality but here's the real deal... I build houses the old fashion way... One stick at a time and I have two guys who work with me... Though I am pushing 60 years old I do everything that I ask of my youngin's... I have to borrow the money to build a house... I have to borrow thwe money to buy the land... I pay my guys a little over $10 an hour which is $2 an hour over what other coptractors pay folks in this very poor county... It take me between a year and a year and half to finish a house 'cause the 3 of us purdy much do everything except the excavation and heat and air... At the end of the deal I make about $50,000 gross on a house and I'm the one carrying ***all*** the risk... If a wind comes up when we've just set a 12/12 roof with 18 foot long 2X12 rafters and takes it out before I can get the roof racked then it's my loss...

This is reality... There are millions of folks like me in this country who are providing jobs for folks but not making enough to be able to afford health insurance... As it turns out I can barely pay for my own health insurance.... Yeah, okay, I do have a couple real estate investment which are my 401(K) but there isn't enough in there for me to be able to take out from it to throw into 401(k)s for my guys....

So, yeah, I do expect a little help for my workers... I'm just one on millions of small businessmen who don't have the $$$ to buy into the corrupt system so that I can get back the big $$$$ from the feds...

And, yeah, considering the cost of living, I do consider both my workers as folks who are living close to poverty...

What is my choice??? Quit and let them go back to making $8 an hour ot do the best I can for them while being very angry that my country's governemnt would rather give me tax dollars to rich folks than my workers... They don't get jack... LIke zip from the federal governemnt... I don't get jack... Like zip from the federal governmnet...

Wish I could say the same for the Halliburtons... Then ther might be a few taters left to help my workers...

And if any sumabitch call me or my workers lazy I'll hunt yer chickensh*t self down and put a whup on you that you'll so embarrassed to have put on yu by a skinny ol' hillbilly that you'll have to wear a bag over yer danged head to go home at night... We ain't lazy... We'll outwork any 24/7 cyber-crybabies any day of the week...

But my guy are living in poverty and that ain't ***my*** fault... And it ain't their's either...

This is another aspect of poverty that folks here maybe ain't considered... But is reality that there are more adults living in poverty who work than those who don't...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:46 PM

Hey Boert, let me try this again.... I know that the situation there in the US is different; here in Canada, anyone with a permanent address and who shows they are actively looking for work (lots of ways around that)can collect welfare. That however, fails to help the homeless (another issue). Those who work for minimum wage do struggle, its a sad fact of life. Governments will always cater to the rich, always have, always will. We don't have to pay for health insurance, in fact it was only a couple of years ago that we actually had to start paying for eys-exams. I know the health-care issue has been a hot topic in your country of late. I think a big difference lies in governmental budget priorities, the USA seems a little too concerned with their millitary, and less about the people that millitary is designed to protect.... And I personally don't blame you one bit for wanting the government to subsidize your business, in fact, since small business makes up a far bigger chunk of the economy than big business, it should be a governmental priority. At the very least, allow the same tax-break considerations as the big guys. And I applaud you for running a business, and providing jobs for people; and the pay seems more than reasonable (judging by what similar work up here would pay). Its a shame even that isn't enough to live comfortably (everyone should have this right). I feel for the American people in the way that here you are, the richest country on earth, and there are so many people who can barely get by, if at all. But there are solutions, and they will take time and effort, I just wonder how hard the government is looking.    P.S....I would be interested in the stats regarding #working vs non-working poor in your country.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 09:17 PM

Too busy workin' my life away to give you those stats... Maybe Dickey who apparently has more time on his hands can provide them but I'll guarentee you that the working adult poor outnumbers the very few (by comparision) welfare moms who are just awiting their own "cut-off" dates when they gotta get on the bus at 5 in the morning and trek across town to make minimum wage...

And, AWG, there are way too many sterotypes of what it's lie to be on welfare in the US... But these sterotypes have been beaten into folks heads by rich folks who have passed down their hatred for the FDR's New Deal from generation to generation... George Bush is a prime example... In college he argues with his teachers about this... Yeah, he put forth the sterotype welfare recipent as ig he actaully knoew anything about the subjexct... Problem, is... he didn't and still doesn't have so much as a clue...

While he was arguin' that there were lazy folks on welfare I was workin' for a community action program in a housi9ng project, Hillside Court, in South Richmond and all the women there were on welfare... The dads were gone... Why??? Because the welfare system in the US demanded that dads ***had*** to be out of the house or the mother wouldn't get jack!!!

Talk about the hypocrisy of "family values"??? The right wing in the US wouldn't know "family val;ues" if bitten on the ass...

This is and was the real deal...

Janie will tell you...

People in the uS ain't lazy... They outwork every industrialized nation in the world and that is top to bottom... Out poor outwork most people in the world..

This ain't about laziness... It's about "the system" that is stacked to the hilt in favor of fat cats and rich pweople at the expense of the folks who build their homes, teach their children, nurse them when they are sick, drive the buses, take care of their eldery parents, fix their plumbing, clean their gutters, etc. etc....

So, yeah, I am very pissed off!!! I don't accept that this is all that my government can do for its people... Tihis, if it didn't involve so many folks living in absolute squaller, would be a joke...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 10:22 PM

Driving the fathers out of the homes was one of the most horrible things America has ever done. I don't know if we will ever be able to count all the problems this has caused. Now some fathers need to go. Boyfriends who molest the mother's daughters (and perhaps sons) have to go. I would certainly provide for married men, assuming they are not violent, on drugs etc. Children need their fathers desperately, working or not. I do believe that fathers or mothers, with the excpetion of those caring for very small children, and perhaps even then under some circumstances, should be expected to contribute to the community in some way if they are receiving any sort of benefit..and the benefit should be increased when they do. They could be doing maintenance, working in nursing homes, day care centers, etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:42 PM

"Because the welfare system in the US demanded that dads ***had*** to be out of the house" Was that a requirement or just a a rule that only familys with no dad could get support? It sounds like a reasonable requirement that dads support their family.

Nobody told my father to leave his family. He started up a business with my uncle and a few others in the basement of that house he built out of scrap lumber scavenged off of construction jobs. He made a machine to bend metal using railroad tracks and hydraulic bottle jacks. His big break came making housings for exhaust fans in army barracks because of the quantity. He used to go to a bank in Georgetown and borrow $200 at a time for operating capital. The interest was around 2 or 3 percent. Poverty back then was twice what it is now. He never went to school except maybe elementary school but he could read. When ever he needed to learn about something he would find a book at the library. He learned to speak German for some reason by himself.
He never even considered welfare. He never whined about anything. Never complained abut what other people had that he did not have. He just worked. The only thing I ever heard him complain about were Jews. He was raised in an era where Henry Ford had a whole hate Jews movement going on.
As kids we didn't have a lot of stuff to play with. I remember my Mom went to the dump and brought back a bunch of disgarded bikes. We took parts from some to fix others. Other that that we had rocks and sticks and old hound dogs to play with but we had great outdoor adventures being surrounded on three sides with farms and woods and creeks to go buck swimming in but we lived right on the edge of Alexandria that had some of the worst slums.
We had a family of Pollock Immigrants on a farm one side. Thier house was once used as a hospital for a civil war battle fought on the ridge to the west. A family of Hillbillies from Harrisonburg had on a farm on the other side. I used to go to visit and they would give me a Quaker Oats carton full of tiny banty chicken eggs. A German family moved in up the road and they built a shack that had a toilet consisting of a terracotta drain tile sticking up out of the floor in the middle of the room that led to a drainfield. Later they built a house and turned the shack into a ckicken coop. Now it is all condos, warehouses and shopping centers and those slums are history.
Our Dad supported us and provided a home starting with nothing in a very bad era. There are even more opportunities now than there were then for able bodied people who work for it. Back then only a few rich folks could send their kids to college.
Almost all the people who lived through the depression are gone now but people these days have no idea what real poverty and insecurity is like.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:57 PM

"...being surrounded on three sides with farms and woods and creeks to go buck swimming in but we lived right on the edge of Alexandria that had some of the worst slums"

It sounds like you enjoyed your childhood. I wonder how the kids in the slums remember theirs? Compared to them, your family was rich.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 12:06 AM

Well put Dianavan, I liked Dickey's post, but you make a GREAT point. There are definately 2 sides to every coin.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:10 AM

Dainavan:

Not living in the slums, I would not know and neither would you.

You clould read what Bill Cosby who did live in the slums has to say about it.

We were poor then but it was no problem because I had a Mom and Dad that cared and did their best. There was nobody telling us how bad off we were, that the rich people were to blame and that we could not get ahead without assistance.