BS: Poverty in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:17 PM

why doesn't anybody discuss ways to stop the abuse of power, rather than just crib over it ??, before the window of opportunity closes i.e before United States becomes another third world country.

for those who don't know , a country becomes a third world country , when people for various reasons, lose hope for their future in their country.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 12:02 AM

Bobert:

"This thread is about poverty... Not you...

Sorry, but if that's all you have to ***add*** top this discussion then "Mr. Ignore" is all you'll get from me...

If you want to continue this personal discussion, do it thru PM's and save the others from your games thank you..."

Bobert:

You chose to ***add*** your personal accusations that I am smug and you said you knew I was white.

Now you refuse to elaborate on the grounds that it is not about me. This is another example of your stating things and refusing to substantiate them. You are under the impression that your "facts" do not have to be supported by you but they have to be accepted. They are absoulte and not debatable.                 

Oxford English Dictionary:
smug • adjective, irritatingly pleased with oneself; self-satisfied.

Now who is being smug?

I prefer to have a public debate about your public personal accusations about me which you seem to think supports the assertions you have made in this thread.

You are no doubt going to accuse me of trying to hijack this thread but I have noticed it is a ploy of yours to state things as a red herring andor an ad hominem attack and when someone trys to expose it as such, you avoid having to defend your accusations by accusing them of trying to hijack the thread. Another example of being smug and unable to debate logically.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:15 AM

Actually, Dickie, I can tell from your opinions that you're White. You're probably White with a very red neck.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 07:00 AM

Good point, Guest.

Containing the abuse of power ain't gonna be easy, but I have to believe it can, over time, be accomplished.

One big question is from what quarter will the leadership come?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:53 AM

Good point, GUEST and this is kibnda what we've been talking about here... I have suggested that the US is closing in on a ***tipping point*** with the vast divide between the "have and the have-nots"...

The income duisribution is so out of wack that when we get to that point the folks that the wealthy have traditionally ***used*** as pawns (i.e. Southern Man and his close cousins in the Midwest) to hold power will turn away from the greedy... History is repleat with such scenerios... Right now, the ruling class is content on making loans to the pawns to keep the pawns somewhat content with toys but those loans will come due and with Southern Man's real income stagnant or going backwards there will come a breaking point...

Traditionally, Southern Man has been led to believe that "BIG Government" and "welfare" are the boogie-men but that dog is gettin' a little slower and a little blinder and his hunting days are numbered...

I'm sure that Boss Hog has PR folks working hard trying to come up with boogie'men-de-jours for Southern Man to blame when the notes come due but, hey, it ain't college professors, liberals, intellectuals or black folk who will be calling in the notes...

So, yeah, most of us here understand the connectiveness between power and poverty but "revolutions", be they violent ot not, find their own times... They are not channeled thru some kinda light switch...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 10:23 AM

"Editorial

Counting the Poor
            

Published: April 17, 2007

It's not official, but it's virtually indisputable. Poverty in America is much more widespread than has been previously acknowledged.

According to the Census Bureau, nearly 37 million Americans — 12.6 percent of the population — were living in poverty in 2005. That means that four years into an economic expansion, the percentage of Americans defined as poor was higher than at the bottom of the last recession in late 2001, when it was 11.7 percent. But that's not the worst of it. Recently, the bureau released 12 alternative measures of poverty, and all but one are higher than the official rate.

The alternative that hews most closely to the measurement criteria recommended by the National Academy of Sciences yields a 2005 poverty rate of 14.1 percent. That works out to 41.3 million poor Americans, 4.4 million more than were officially counted. Those higher figures indicate that millions of needy Americans are not getting government services linked to official poverty levels.

The census's official measure basically looks only at whether a family has enough pretax income, plus cash benefits from the government, to pay for bare necessities. The academy's criteria called for adding in the value of noncash government benefits like food stamps, and for subtracting expenses like out-of-pocket medical costs and work-related outlays, including child care expenses.

They also take into account geographical differences in the cost of living and the fact that poverty is relative. To be accurate, a poverty gauge cannot simply measure a family's ability (or lack thereof) to subsist. It must also capture the extent to which the poor cannot afford the requisites of modern life.

All told, under the official measure, the poverty line for a family with two parents and two children is $19,806. Under the alternative it's $22,841"

New York Times 4-17-07 Editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:01 PM

And, Amos, look who has the job of definin' what poverty is??? The finacial thresholds are a joke...

I believe if we were really serious and factored in the increase of cost of housing and energy we'd find those numbers sunsatantailly higher than those provided by the Census...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Scoville
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:55 AM

Flipping hamburgers is a time-honored way to put oneself through school..then the person can become an electrician, physical therapist,nurse, whatever. If they have a full-time job flipping hamburgers, and are single, and have minimum wage in my state, which is not too bad, they are out of the direst forms of poverty that have been described. They are a success story. They made it. They can afford food, a shared apartment or rental room, a bus pass and a few clothes. Medical problems would be another story and I hope we soon have national medical programs. I would have loved to have had a job say at McD. when I was in high school. Next step is the community college where they can get loans, grants etc. Then they get a decent job that the community college (in my state) will essentially place them in, because that is how they keep programs going, and leave the hamburger job for someone else.

Okay, but most states still have crappy minimum wages and a lot of underprivileged kids have kids of their own or feel obligated to help their families. Most large U.S. cities, at least in the South and West, have poor public transport so people end up spending a lot of extra time on the bus when they could be studying.

Also, a lot of kids are hamstrung in the first place because they and their parents have not learned to work within society to the point where applying for school loans, etc., is in their frame of reference. Seriously. They may not speak English. They may be reluctant to deal with financial or government organizations because their parents are here illegally. They may simply have no clue that this stuff exists or where to find it. My mother's friend has neighbors who have lived here for sixteen years who do not speak English and whose native-born children did not begin to learn English until they got to school (where they are doing poorly because they cannot read well and cannot read at all in English). They are extremely isolated, even in the middle of a neighborhood and school district that does not have a high immigrant population and that has probably better-than-average access to this sort of help. Sometimes there are multiple steps involved in even reaching the minimum level of functionality that would enable one to do the above.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's rarely that straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:28 PM

"Actually, Dickie, I can tell from your opinions that you're White. You're probably White with a very red neck."

The assumption that one can tell the color of anothers' skin by their opinions is biggoted and racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:50 PM

I just read someting I missed that I throughly agree with exceot for the revolution part. I think that has already occured:

"Many of the "charity" programs have moved away from long-term handouts, and have changed to a focus on providing seed money for community organizing so that people can pull themselves out of poverty.

The books I've been reading differentiate between charity and justice. Charity is giving people things to fill their temporary needs. Justice is giving people what they deserve - the right to be able to provide for their needs themselves.

Both are necessary, but justice is the long-term solution. I don't think that violent revolution will accomplish anything good - but there certainly is room for a strong but nonviolent revolution.

-Joe Offer-"

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM

Dickie - Your skin could be purple but based on your opinions, I would still call you a red-necked, White boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM

That is uncalled for. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:50 PM

Well, actually it isn't uncalled for... Dicket has been **tryin*** his best to highjack this thread because it deals with a subject that doesn't exactly make the ruling class shine...

Yeah, I have mentioned race in this thread in terms of discussing poverty... Anyone who has worked with poor people fully understands that race is part of discussing poverty because such a large percenttage of black folks live in poverty as compared to wghite people...

It should be noted that I didn't say that Dickey's was white before Dickey challeneged me to prove he wasn't...

This is race baiting!!!

Yeah, I believe that Dickey is white but like I've said, who the heck cares what color he is... He, not the others here, wants to play thias race card over and over and over and over and...

...yeah, mg... For what purpose??? NO one called him a white guy until he laid out the challenge to prove he was white????????

Now if it's okay, can we get back to the discussion or are reasonable peole going to be held captive by a shill for the folks who don't want this discussion occuring???

That is the bottom line here...

Can Boss Hog's shill highjack a reasonable discussion???

And, yeah, living arounf redneck, this is what they would do as well because they are currently "true believing" shill for Boss Hog and if you don't think so, come to Page County, Virgina for a short tour...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 06:56 PM

I don't necessarily think it was wrong to call someone white..after all, you are or you aren't and whatever you are be proud of it. It is however insulting, and we all know it, to call a man a boy. It is not done in polite society. There is an area where who knows...16-18 or so...but a grown man is not called a boy, a grown woman is not called a girl. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:01 PM

And I don't call grown men "boy" either unless it it is used an an endearing term... But the4 bottom line is that I didn't call Dickey anything until ***after**** he accused me of having called him white...

That is the issue here... It shouldn't be, but somehow Dickey has used the "race card" in an attempt to ***stop*** this discussion...

Be carefull who you side with, mg...

You may think I am rude but I know enough to try to keep an important disusssion alive without having to accuse people of saying stuff they didn't say...

This seems to be the only tool left in the Bushit's tool box here in Mudville... I've seen it over and over... When they cannot defend their positions it comes down to putting words in their adversaries mouths and then go on arguing against the made up words...

This is not only dishonest but rather juvinilistic...

Now can we talk about poverty or do we have to go thru another round of BS from Dicky trying to subvert this thread???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:14 PM

And what about the preditory lending practices that the ruling class has entered into in order to keep their 10-plus% return on their wealth...

Why are they entitiled to 10-plus%??? They produce nuthing!!!

The "cleaning lady" produces more than most rich people... Rich people aren't part of out economy... They cheat more frequestly on their taxes... They don't create wealth... All they do is, ahhhh, nuthin' but eat grapes and hire PR firms to convince Southern Man to keep them richy...

That's about it in a nut-shell...

Th8is is waht poverty is about... These rich people have hired the right PR firms to ***frame*** some purdy decent programs as evil and sold it to Southern Man who in turn has gone to polls and kept rich people in power....

Thus, juast about every Great Society program is either dead or on life support... This isn't rhetoric, folks, it's what is going down...

Bottom line, if the rich don't want a revolution, violent ot not, they are going to have to learn to share 'cause it it unacceptable for the wealthiest country in the weastern hemisphere to have such a high number of folks in poverty...

Just adding $5B to child care would keep over a million single moms working for the crappy $8 an hour... Heck, the wealthy in the US steal that much in unreported or undereported taxable income every month of the year....

People ain't askin' no one for handouts... Just a fair shake in this economy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:09 PM

I agree that Dickey has contributed little, if anything, to this thread. Not because he has a different pov, but because he has no real voice, and his main purpose on Mudcat seems to be to stalk and harrass Bobert. Click on his name and read his posted messages. He is a 'knee-jerk' conservative. (Yes, there are knee-jerk conservatives just like there are knee-jerk liberals.) He posts links to, or cuts and pastes selected quotes from articles, usually, but not always, propoganda, or links to statistics that are questionable or taken out of context, and does his best, with some success, to provoke others, myself included, to react with angry, ill-considered words. He is a troll.

Most of his posts on other threads are of the same ilk-they are either links or cut-and-pastes with no indication of actual thoughtfulness or exploration of the topic, or they are challenges aimed at Bobert. He is playing games. He thinks he is playing 'Gotcha.' He is extremely manipulative in the way he posts. And very shallow. Notice how he avoids actually expressing or developing any thoughts or ideas. He is, however, a useful foil to react to and which most of the rest of us have used to continue to explore and discuss a number of very broad and important issues that touch on many aspects of our current society. In the absence of any truly intelligent and thoughtful conservative voice on this thread, we manage to use him well. I suspect there has been no intelligent and thoughtful conservative voice on this thread for the simple reason that truly intelligent and thoughtful philosophical conservatives also see what has happened in this country and don't generally disagree with the observations many of us have made about the socioeconomic realities we now face in the USA. A philosophically conservative individual is not the same creature as an 'I got mine, to hell with the rest of you' political conservative.

Having said all of that, I dislike the use of perjorative stereotypes, including 'redneck.' Being from the much maligned state of West Virginia, now living in North Carolina for the past 20 years, and having suffered myself from the the stereotypes people have of both southerners and West Virginians, I find the hackles on my neck rise at the term 'redneck' or 'southern man', or even 'Boss Hogg', unless they are used in quotes to denote that you are using them as generalizations and recognize them as such.

One of the ways whole socioeconomic classes of people are kept down, is through the manipulative use of stereotypes. I don't think the language of stereotypes serves anyone interested in social justice well.

End of sermon:>)

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:44 PM

Amen. And I will start another thread with that in mind. There is too much selective brutality..I can say this to that person because I am more politically astute. I can demean this person because I am from a protected group. I can call other women "ho's" but now I realize I can't do that if they are basketball players. I will look around and see who it is safe to insult and demean and go for it until the tide of public opinion makes that group unacceptable to torment. Universal respect would go a long ways. It would make some marginally intolerable jobs tolerable, it would chew on the edges of poverty. It would perhaps reduce the number of massacres that we have seen lately from kids who were pushed to their limits...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:26 PM

I always thought the term red-neck referred to a gun-toting, God-fearing, hippy hating, neo-conservative. I didn't know it had anything to do with Southerners - more to do with someone who worked outside.

That being said, in the context of this thread, if someone is accused of having opinions that are White, male and red-necked, it relates only to a particular perspective on poverty. Yes, it is a stereotype but without knowing Dickie, I can only guess where his opinions are coming from.

Being White myself, I think I am qualified to call White attitudes, white. Growing up in red-neck country, I can also identify red-necks. Dickie may not be a red-neck but he most certainly is White.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:18 AM

Didn't you grow up in the exact part of the world I did? It doesn't sunshine enough to give us red necks. Well, sometimes it does..strawberry picking etc. And there is no getting around the fact it is not used usually in a complimentary way. It is an insult, unless the people themselves call themselves that, which is a whole other can of worms. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:20 AM

Dickey ain't worth arguin' with.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:12 AM

Hey Bobert: You accuse me of being a shill and trying to hijack the thread in order to avoid answering questions about your erronious "facts".

Anything you can do to smugly weasle out of answering.

Bobert grew up in Bull Connor country. There was an underground railroad around here to help escaped slaves make it to the north. I don't own a gun.

Apply your pejorative terms to me if you want but it shows biggotry to say that you know someones skin color based on their opinions.

I merely bring attention to the contradictions I see in people's postings such as Bobert calling someone else smug or Dianavan calling someone mean spirited. I do contribute my own thoughts and opinions. They are dismissed with persaonal attacks because they do not agree with those who think they "own the thread"

When I see something I agree with, I say so and I respect the opinions of others. However I seldom get any respect in return.

It is my understanding that redneck referred to teamsters, people that drove wagons with teams of mules or horses in the areas of the south, mainly Georgia, with red clay. The dust from the clay made their sweaty necks red. Cracker means the same teamsters cracking their whips to drive the teams. There were Georgia crackers and Florida crackers too.

I don't see how they apply to anubody today except as a demeaning label to try to put someone down for their beliefs.

I see a lot of hatred being expressed here without much logic to support it. Also a lot of misleading "facts" that are not supported by the poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:16 AM

You started here being rude. Why do you expect anything else back? YOU are the bigot. Your perjorative crap about Canada is how you started. Fuck you asshole, yesterday, today and tomorrow. You worked hard to get an enemy. You got one.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:30 AM

Well, yeah, lots of folks (some Southerners included) don't like the term "redneck"... I guess it doesn't bother me because it is a label that many folks I have lived with have endeared... There is a bar here in Virginia entitled "Rednecks"... Folks in these parts buy large "Redneck" decals which they proudly display in the back windows of their pickup trucks right next to the #3 decal which is right next to the confederate flag... This is my reality...

"Southern Man" comes from Neil Young's song of the same title and purdy much sums up the "ignorance" of lots of southern folks toward accepting change for the better...

Of course, "Boss Hog", though borrowed from t5he TV show "The Dukes of Hazard", represents the ruling class...

But I think most of you know these things...

I must admit that I like to use these terms because they kinda sum up the kinda folks I am talking about... Generalizations??? Well, yeah... But their are some generalization that can be made about blocks of folks, while still having some individulality, tend to be like members of schools of fish: willing to go with the pack rather than think...

But, okay, having said that, if it will make these terms less offensive, I will use "quotation marks" around them...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 08:13 AM

A recent study on income distribution in the US found some striking information... In this recent period where poverty rates are on the rise, the rishest 10% corral 44% of the "taxable" income (1) which is the highest percentage since the 1920's and 1930's... What happened then was the rise of "labor unions" which gave rise to the middle class... But this study went even further and this perhaps is where the rub comes into play in finding that the richest 1% now corral a whopping 17% of pre-tax income (ibid)!!! In 1980 the upper 1% brought in 8% of pretax income (ibid)!!!

This trend is disturbing and while not explaining why the poverty rates are rising, must be at the very least factored it...

Now I do not begrudge people making money and, yes, I do realize that the richest 10% pay half the federal taxes but it should also be pointed out that evn after paying these taxes they are rich beyond 90% iof wage earners wildest dreams...

And, yes, I agree that if we tax folks too much then there will be no incentive for folks to try to get ahead... But my problems with the ruling class is that the governemnt--- yes, the same governemnt that has been cutting programs for the poor-- has tilted the playing field for the rich... In a dmocracy, everyone is supposed to have the same level of access but that has been disappearing in porportion to the increase of wealth by the ruling class... This, IMO, is why poverty rates on on the increase...

Like Janie said... It is about "power" and the rich have all the power and thus, "access" to the folks who make the rules... And the rules have been increasingly going in favor iof the rich...

So, yeah, I've spoken of a "revolution" and, yeah, I guess that's what ity's going to take to get the governemnt to create opportunites for ***everyone***... If we would just level the playing field of "power" then thwe programs would return because they are the ***only*** tools to "repair" the conditions that have led to an increase of poverty...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 08:28 AM

Opps...

Source: Study by Emanuel Saez of the University of California at Bearkley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economicas... "The Rich and the Rest" by Robert J. Samuelson, "Wsahington Post", April 18, 2007

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 08:45 AM

Bobert still avoids explaining why tax revenues are increasing rapidly. He just posts more "statistics are for loosers", "I don't need 'um" statistics.

"income distribution"

Income is not distributed. It is earned except in countries like Saudi Arabia and Alaska where the oil profits are distrubuted to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM

"...To calculate the top 1 percent's share of total income, we need a definition of total income. For postwar data, Piketty and Saez use a modified version of adjusted gross income (AGI). Unfortunately, the Bureau of Economic Analysis calculates that AGI is not even a good measure of AGI -- it was missing $1.1 trillion dollars in 2004, called the "AGI Gap." It is also missing income of non-filers, estimated at $479 billion in 2000.

Transfer payments of $1.5 trillion are arbitrarily excluded, too. Benefits from private pensions qualify as "market income," yet benefits from Social Security do not.

The famed Canberra Group of experts insisted that household income must include cash transfers, food stamps and everything else that "increases the recipient's potential to consume or save." Most or all transfers are included in every official measure of pretax household income from the Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Fed. My family will collect more than $3,000 a month from Social Security next year, but Piketty and Saez say that's not income (the IRS disagrees).

In the American Economic Review last May, Piketty and Saez explained that their top 1 percent figures for other countries "are obtained by dividing top income shares by personal income." Their U.S. figures for 2005, however, are obtained by dividing top income shares by "market income" of $6.8 trillion -- a figure 38 percent smaller than pretax personal income. Income of the top 1 percent ($1.2 trillion) was 10.8 percent of pretax personal income ($11.1 trillion).

Everyone imagines the increase in the top 1 percent share, from about 13 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2005, must reflect the lavish salaries of a few thousand CEOs and celebrities. Samuelson tells us, "There were about 18,000 lawyers, 15,000 corporate executives, 33,000 investment bankers (including hedge fund managers, venture capitalists and private-equity investors) and 2,000 athletes who made roughly $500,000 or more in 2004." But that totals 68,000 -- less than 5 percent of the 1.4 million in the top 1 percent...."

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AlanReynolds/2007/04/19/what_is_income

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:24 PM

I mean, no offense, but do you have an real point, Dickey??? If so, it was not articulated in yer hodge-podge of research which seems to actually say, ahhh, nuthin'...

What is your point???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:57 PM

As Janie and I have pointed out, the politicans who have taken over our country have no stomach for a "War on Poverty"... Any other kinda war and you can count them in but not for the poor among us...

I mentioned that the funds for child care have been frozen and therefore there are moms coming off welfare into workfare and needing assistence with child care are cutting into a frozen pool of $$$ fir child care and thus moms who have tried to play by the new rules and are at a break even point with their existing child care assistence can no longer afford to work...

Can I get Dickey to respond to this ******in his own words***** and without right wing blog crap... I mean, this is the real world... This isn't "Boss Hog's" world where you just pay off enought PR to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t... This problem has been substantiated by not only the media but anyone social worker in family serivices will atest to it as well... This is a major problem but the Dickey's of the world will find their little allies who say, "Don't worry, be happy..."...

Yeah, this is a part of our country's responsibility to "repair" the ills of poverty and our country is thinking it will just go away...

Do the math... This problem won't go away anymore that our governemnt outlawing cancer...

This is the real discussion...

It ain't about what color Dickey is or I am... This is the meat and taters of the discussion...

Dickey will paly games with this one, too, because he is totally incapable of discussing anything but hiding behind propaganda...

My hope is that each Dickey would one day have to wake up and be one of these women...

"Now ya' don't talk so proud" (Dylan)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Wordsmith
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:35 AM

Politicians don't make "War on Poverty" any more because it doesn't bring them any more money. This is all about the "haves" and "have nots." Everything is about money. We outsource our soldiers' mess, their water supply, and, lord knows what else. I wanted to throw up yesterday when I read how much the US embassy in Baghdad is going to cost us...$600 million. For a building...well, actually I'll have to get the article to explain the complex...which includes a gymnasium, swimming pool...and all of the other necessities. I can't even remember where I read it...must've been the NY Times. I'm too tired right now, having just caught up on this thread from where I last posted. We can't armor our soldiers and their vehicles...I know this isn't the right thread...but it is germane...but we can build this complex!!! You know the military stopped allowing parents to send their kids bulletproof vests. It embarrassed them. All of the money we're pouring into somebody's pockets...who could that be?

Here's a thought: what if the only choices one has are all bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:12 AM

May I send you guys a brick? It would be available when you want to smack against your heads. No offense, but Dickey's posts are not worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:17 AM

"do you have an real point, Dickey???"

Yes. Piketty and Saez define the top 1% to suit their anti capitalist agenda and Bobert falls for it bug time. Anything that makes the rich folks out to be the bad guys has to be true and anything to the contary must be a lie. That is the result of subjective logic VS objective logic.

Now if this is a *******REAL****** discussion Bobert, please explain why tax renenues are increasing so rapidly while you claim rich folks are hiding income offshore.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:38 AM

Picture this hypothetical scenario:

Bobert is building a spec home. He has some operating money from real estate deals and good credit from a history of borrowing and paying back on time. He gets the best prices from the suppliers. He has efficient, seasoned employees. He has the best tools and vehicles due to his efficient management. The house is going up fast and Bobert stands to make a good profit.

Another contractor is building a house nearby for a customer. He had to bid on the job so he is the lowest bidder. He is a less experienced contractor with bottom of the barrel, absent on Monday employees, no operating money, poor credit, gets gouged by the suppliers and creditors because of a poor history of paying due to circumstances beyond his control. He operates from draw to draw, hopscotching from job to job.

Contractor #2 will make little or no profit from building the house. He sees Bobert doing good and hates him because he is "rich" compared to him, making much more profit. He bumps into Bobert down at the Home Depot and tells him "Why don't you rich builders share you profits with us poor builders?" I read in the Washington post how all you rich guys are crooks because you are getting breaks that us common people don't get like from the bank and all. You have it fixed so you make all the money that we should be making.

So what does Bobert say to contractor #2?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:40 AM

Dickey - When most people talk about the rich, they are not referring to anyone who shops at Home Depot. Believe me when I say the nobody is really worried about building contractors stashing money in offshore accounts. Its not working people who have to hide their profits.

How old are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Wordsmith
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:55 AM

BTW, it was Parade Magazine, and I posted the entire article on its own thread. See Dickey...go read: "Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant." This is what our tax dollars and the future of America is being spent on.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:55 AM

Diavan:

I am still working and my income is not dstributed to me. I work for it.

I tried to put in terms Bobert can relate to and contractors do not "shop". They buy materials. Why do you automatically assume I am talking about people stashing money offshore? You lash out automatically againts anybody with a different opinion. I am talking about Boberts misconception of sucessfull people taking advantage of the less fortunate.

Perhaps you can explain why tax revenues are increasing so rapidly while rich folks are stashing their money ofshore?

If you notice, IRS is going all out to detect offshore accounts. The problem is not a new one as Bobert asserts but the IRS is just now cracking down. Perhaps it is this crackdown that is causing the increased revenues.

IRS Says Offshore Tax Evasion Is Widespread
By David Cay Johnston New York Times March 26, 2002

"...It is legal to have an offshore account, provided it is reported and any taxes are paid. Failure to disclose such holdings is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. In 1999, the I.R.S. said, 117,000 Americans checked the box on their income tax return disclosing an offshore account, far fewer than the number of MasterCard accounts the agency found in just Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands.

Because of secrecy laws in the tax-haven nations, the charge records reveal only account numbers � not names. So investigators, in a laborious process, must turn to merchants to obtain the names of the individuals through their credit card receipts.

Investigators will have an easier time finding tax evasion by customers of American Express, which agreed to turn over some records after giving the customers warning. But the agreement is limited to those accounts, billed to addresses in the three tax havens, that incurred at least five charges in the United States in 1998 and 1999 and in which at least one was for at least $2,500 on certain types of purchases, including automobiles, jewelry and yachts. Unlike MasterCard and Visa, which as networks do not know the names of customers, American Express knows its cardholders.

A senior I.R.S. official acknowledged yesterday that the agency lacked the resources to prosecute most of the offshore tax evaders or even to pursue civil penalties against more than a fraction.

"We have lots of indications of tax evasion here," said Dale Hart, an I.R.S. deputy commissioner, "and we are going to be using the resources we do have to work those cases to the best of our ability." But, she noted, "every day, several times a day, we make decisions about which cases we will work and which we will not."

Congress has sharply reduced the agency's budget for tax enforcement. Today, just 23 tax auditors remain on the payroll in Manhattan, the richest tax district in the country, down from 150 several years ago.

When the I.R.S. obtained records of one bank in the Cayman Islands, it said it found 1,500 cases worth prosecuting. "How many have they brought?" asked Larry Campagna, a criminal tax lawyer in Houston. "Maybe 10?" Mr. Campagna said that when the investigation was completed many of the credit cards would be found to have innocent explanations and not involve tax crimes. Ms. Kneally and Mr. Kagan expressed similar views. But Ms. Hart said she was confident from the data analyzed so far that the I.R.S. had found many deliberate tax evaders and not innocents caught up in a fishing expedition...."

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:41 AM

"Can I get Dickey to respond to this ******in his own words***** and without right wing blog crap... I mean, this is the real world."

Bobert, you are the one that cut and pasts left wing crap statistics here.

As for the Mothers, I have been trying to tell you for a long time here, no matter what you do for the mothers, you will only have an increasing amount of mothers in need unless you find and eliminate the causes for mothers in need.

I saw a person on Cspan talking about the effect high stakes testing on the schools.

In the course of his speaking he said, if I remember it correctly "kids spend 1000 hours in school and 5000 hours in an unhealthy community and in an unhealthy family. We are trying to correct for the unhealty family and the unhealthy community in the schools. It is amazing what the schools do accomplish in those 1000 hours."

I bounced this off of my wife which has been in education all her life including teaching at Johns Hopkins, and she agreed. I said to her "the only way I can see for them to escape poverty is through education." See agreed and added that they also need better examples to follow.

I say the root of the problem is family values and the community/environment in which poor people are raised, not in a lack of bandaids to apply to the wounds.

Now you can rip me to shreds with personal assults for my opinions written in my own words and get back to your posting of left wing crap about the US government spending $500,000 for security screening for a Wall Street helipad in Manhattan when in the *******real******* world, the screening is done by a private company and paid for by the passengers or how apartments rent for $1300 minimum when in the *******real****** world, $1300 is the average.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:53 AM

What is the skin color of the person that said this?

"Lastly, parents must be made aware of the need for good education of the child, boy or girl. Like teachers, parents should set an example for the child in their overall behavior and conduct. What students learn in class from their teachers is complemented by what they learn from their home environment; what a child learns from his or her father, mother, elder brother or sister is very important for the future of that child."

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:11 AM

George Soros is known as the wealthiest speculator of all time. His trading all took place in the Netherlands Antilles, where his earnings compounded tax free.

http://www.turtletrader.com/oig.html

In 1970, this Hungarian-born contrarian investor-philosopher created the Quantum Fund with Jim Rogers… It went on to return about 3,999%, compounded, over the next 30 years… Soros is famous for going short the British pound and earning $1 billion in a single day, Black Wednesday, 1992.   He was dubbed the "Man who broke the bank of England" for his move, which forced major reforms to the British banking system. Today he fights the "evils" of the U.S. brand of capitalism even while profiting handsomely from it (he's worth an estimated $7.1 billion).

http://www.investment-u.com/ppc/splash_soros.cfm?kw=XVVIU317

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:03 PM

"As for the Mothers, I have been trying to tell you for a long time here, no matter what you do for the mothers, you will only have an increasing amount of mothers in need unless you find and eliminate the causes for mothers in need."

Mothers can't work and take care of their kids, too. In order to work, they need affordable day care and health care benefits. Since minimum wage won't cover either, they need education. Why do you think abortions among the lower classes are so high. At the same time you have the right wing nuts pushing two ends against the middle.

Ever heard of "dead beat dads?"

Yeah right, you're wife teaches at John Hopkins!

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

LOL, Dickey... Are you on drugs, or what???

I am the contractor who has to go up against the rich fat cats... Do I shop for materials??? You bet I do...

But this thread isn't about me even thou you think you can make it about me...

It's about poverty....

If you have a problem discussing the issues that I have put forward, such as the frozen resources for child care, in this thread and want to turn it into some personal thing, there is something called "PM" here... I ain't hiding from anyone... I'm 100% transparent here in Mudville... Folks know me face to face... Folks have heard me perform... Folks have stayed in my house...

How 'bout you, Dickey???

Yeah, all you do is sit in front of yer tiny little computer in your tiny little cyber world lobbing your tiny little cyber grenades at me...

You want to talk about poverty or not???

Yes ______

No _______

If not, then find someone else to stalk...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:39 PM

'What is the skin color of the person that said this?

"Lastly, parents must be made aware of the need for good education of the child, boy or girl. Like teachers, parents should set an example for the child in their overall behavior and conduct. What students learn in class from their teachers is complemented by what they learn from their home environment; what a child learns from his or her father, mother, elder brother or sister is very important for the future of that child."'

The person who said that is Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:22 PM

I am talking about poverty Bobert but you are talking about mantaining and continuing poverty and expanding the base.

I am talking about the root cause. I guess you think it is an incurable disease.

"Yeah, all you do is sit in front of yer tiny little computer in your tiny little cyber world lobbing your tiny little cyber grenades at me"

I case you want to know what I did today in the ****REAL**** world, I was putting foam foil reflective insulation in my attic and then I had to load up my ladder and go checkout a membrane roof for damage. One piece of flashing blew off in that big wind a we had a week ago monday. After that I finished out the day lopping limbs that were overhanging the roof so if one breaks off, it won't poke a hole in the membrane. Now I have to order a sideload storefront door closer to replace one that was damaged in the wind.

You can get all personal and laugh haughtily all you want to avoid answering the questions but if you were as good as you say you are, you could explain about those left wing fairytales you keep cutting and pasting here.

You are the one that "celebrates" and throws the stink bombs by your own admission. All I am doing is tossing them back.

"Can I get Dickey to respond to this ******in his own words***** and without right wing blog crap... I mean, this is the real world."

You want me to answer in my own words but when I do so you leap on it with your usual vicious personal attacks and accuse me of stalking.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:24 PM

"The person who said that is Black." How did you figure that out?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:33 PM

Dianavan:

Are you saying the root cause of poverty is deadbeat dads?

Yes my wife used to teach at Johns Hopkins. She taught education to other teachers. She went back to teaching high school and not in a good neighbor hood either.

She sees this unwed mother dead beat dad thing at the beginning and kids dropping out. She also sees the ones that make it in the face of adversity due to parental support.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:50 PM

'"The person who said that is Black." How did you figure that out?'

1) David Kabuye is a master of spin. Very pro-government (Rwanda) writer.

2) It stands to reason you'd quote him.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 07:58 AM

Okay, Dickey, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on the "root" causes of poverty...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 04:35 PM

I'll start again. Don't think the last one went. These things obviously interact with each other, but if you fix the easier ones, through education, supplementation of working people's efforts, easier transportation to work, protection of workers' rights, environmental protection (all without choking the economy)...things will improve to the point of only having to have society take care of the truly intractable poverty situations. Obviously the infirm, the elderly, children, certain types of handicaps will always have to be taken care of, and can be taken care of and jobs provided to the currently unemployed through good programs.

Anyway, root causes.
1. Geography. Lack of natural resources of agricultural land, water, sunshine. And here in America,and here in Washington state, we sit on the most beautiful land inthe world and what do we put on it? Junky beige houses that could be grazing cows or growing oats or something. Need to be incentives or zoning or laws to protect all agricultural ground for agriculture. Similar for woodlands. Encourage movement to rocky areas for housing. Build out of rocks, all over America. Fireproof, tornadoproof, bug and mold proof and provide jobs to poor areas, which almost always would have rocks and more rocks and sand.
2. Too much population for the immeidately available resources. That could be a city, a country, a world. A family. Teens especially having children strain the resources of a family and a community. This causes so many problems they can't be counted. It is irresponsible for a society to allow its teenage girls to get pregnant through abusive situations or to run so unfettered that they will follow nature's imperative and get pregnant voluntarily. I am mostly referring to the way younger teens. Likewise, any woman having children without benefit of a husband does great financial damage to herself, to her family members, to her community. She deprives a child of at least 50% of potential support, and 50% of extended family usually. This is an incalculable burden on society, and a tragedy for the child involved, often, but not always. Some truly don't notice the difference of not having a father, and some are born with a broken heart because they don't. Am I blaming the teens or unwed mothers? No. Am I blaming those who won't put the mildest of disapprovals on this behavior, even less than they would for those say using plastic rather than paper bags? Yes. (and paper bags cause bad bad problems in landfills, probably worse than plastic).
3. Bad bad awful education in the public and private schools, where the differing capabilities and backgrounds of children are not taken into account, where the needs of those not college bound are totally dismissed. So little vocational education, when if it was mandatory for each and every student, it would prevent many dropouts, and insure that each and every American would have a skill to support themselves in hard times even if they thought they would never have to cook or type...I can not say enough about how serious this is.
4. Exploitation. People will take advantage of poor people, but I don't think there is a group of the high and mighty looking for ways to keep people poor, or hope that they stay poor. Capitalism works best with a flexible, educated and capable workforce that will have other opportunities and so the bosses know they can walk away to something better. I honestly don't see deliberate actions of the ruling classes trying to keep people poor. I feel they would rather poor people just would go away. I think there is no benefit to anyone to deliberately having poor people as a pool for something or other, except as said recently, to serve in the military so their own sons and daughters will get excused.
5. Outside threats. It is true we could build x number of schools and clinics instead of 1 B1 Bomber..but the world is so dangerous we must find ways to do both. The highest and most necessary social and health service a government must provide is to protect its citizens from attack. It would not be pretty, trust me.
6. Drugs. Huge amounts of money diverted. Whole neighborhoods and cities unsafe. This of course means companies don't want to move there and hire people. Leads to all sorts of gang fights, people afraid to leave their homes, difficulty to and from work. Horrible horrible problem. Anyone taking public money in any way, public schools, state colleges, public housing, heck a library card, should be screened for drugs. No privacy afforded to them. THis leads to housing problems...if you have a young man or woman who is clean and sober and wants to work in another city, someone has an aunt or grandparent who could put them up and they do yard work in exchange for a while. Can't do that with the threat of drugs...no one is safe.
7. Other social issues. Generational poverty. Lack of fathers...oh that is so huge a problem...one of the functions of the father has been to control his offspring....now they are running loose in gangs and with their cell phones they are meeting and doing great disservices to neighborhoods....I'm not saying none of them have fathers, but there is a collective effect.

Where would I start: Drug screening, having each and every teen meet with a nurse about family planning, hopefully after marriage and way in the future. Vocational education for every single student, including those with the Harvard aspirations. More lighting in rough neighborhoods. More video cameras in public areas and by convenience stores and other likely targets. Provide those places with loud sirens and direct lines to police station, perhaps monitor at the police station a group of buildings and intersections, like private security firms do.

Certainly programs to supplement those who are working already, with childcare, family planning, transportation, safe and clean public housing. Better care of the handicapped. Respite care.

Also, we have to have figured out by now that we need bunkhouses or some safe, clean, minimalistic shelter for single men and women, probably more men. Concrete, steam cleanable. Segregated by if they have problems...violent ones under strong security. Ordinary down on their luck one category. Mentally ill but not dangerous in separate facility with some support services.

No not ever giving social security to people who are drug or alcohol addicted. Give them hospice care and an allowance for an occasional new shirt and haircut, but not money. Food and shelter provided somewhere.

WPA type jobs for those who find it difficult to go through the job seeking process. Many people could and want to work, but as mentioned in other threads, do not know the process, are demoralized, etc. These could be in child care, elder care, facility maintenance, gardening, office work, safety patrolling of neighborhoods, escorting children to schools safely, and hopefully would lead to other opportunities in education and employment for people.

Have plans to take back the scary neighborhoods and housing projects. Read how the other half lives..life in New York tenements turn of the century. They said when the Germans came to a hopeless neighborhood, they turned it around. They put flowerpots int he windows. They put matrons in the tenements to keep an eye on things..we need way more eyes in some of these places, and way more daylighting so people can go to and fro without threats.

Well, that is all for now. Straighten up some easier problems, do not give people a message that it is all hopeless, go ahead and do drugs because there is no job in the world you will ever ever get, oops you have one flipping hamburgers, not good enough....there is still no hope...nonsense...give them messages of hope and pathways of education etc. that they can follow. It is called community colleges for those who are not severely handicapped in various ways....mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 07:53 PM

Well, mg, we might differ in some areas ***but*** a very well thought out and, excuse the dated phrase but, very "right on" posting!!!

I mean it...

Bobert

p.s. And client centered, too...