BS: Poverty in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 11:54 AM

Hmmmm. Replace 'sub-service' with 'sub-surface'. The brain is a funny thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 12:45 PM

The reason I make scenarios about what the evil oil companies do is to draw attention to the absurdity and unpleasantness of stating the profits of the largest company in the world as having something to do with people being poor or that the company wants people to be poor. Ergo when you see a poor person, you are automatically supposed to blame big oil companies and they must be greedy and evil. A straw man issue.

Yes, the oil companies would not share in the oil revenues with Alaskans voluntarily but they never the less pay them a share and help to aleviate poverty at least in Alaska.

Who might really want people to be poor so they can keep them in a credit trap are credit card companies, payday loan companies etc. The profits of the banking sector are much higher that the oil sector. WHy not regulate them?

Exxon/Moblie profit margin 10.6%
Citigroup profit margin 18.7%

Actually if you go by assets, Citigroup is the largest company in the world but they don't produce anything to sell like Exxon.

When I hear someone is poor and can't pay thier credit card debt, I automatically blame the credit card comapnies for giving them credit and allowing them to spend more than they can pay back and I consider that evil and greedy. John Cash Penny resisted accepting credit acrd sales at jc Penny stores into the 50's because he considered it usury to sell people things on credit.

And poverty sure as hell is not caused by someone not being able to get their doors when they want them.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

Studies of the Guaranteed Minimum Income Big, NIT, whatever you call it, experiments did show that people cut back on their working hours.

I think it is the word "guaranteed" that irks people. Why should anyone, except for the elderly or diaabled, be guaranteed they will be paid even if they don't work? How can it not give rise to a society that is non productive and eventually dies out?

If the guarantee could be removed the concept might merit more testing and study.

I still think an increased minimum wage for legal aliens and citizens and elimination of the basic causes of poverty including controling companies that actually prey on poor people is a better approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

I think that some people are quite willing to hold the poor as hostages until poverty is relieved by the way that they want it to be relieved and no other ways. It causes great stangleholds on society and does the poor terrible harm. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 02:25 PM

"the oil companies would not share in the oil revenues with Alaskans voluntarily but they never the less pay them a share and help to aleviate poverty at least in Alaska." dickey

No. The oll companies do NOT pay Alaskans a share. Read the act and you will know a little more about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 02:34 PM

What is the skin color of the person that said this? No Googling.

Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it.
As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America.
Guess what the president and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 08:31 PM

Why the **race card***, Dickey???

Ahhhh, as for the guarenteed national income, how can you comment that the model is unworkable as it has never been tried here in the US???

Hey, it would elliminate poverty as we know it in families that have a working parent...

Minimum wage has been a joke... It has never been set at a level that would take someone earning it out of poverty... Even in 1969 when it had its highest spending power, a family could rise above the poverty line on it...

Plus, consider this... There are lots on samll companies who don't have the clout of the "Boss Hogs", mine for example, who could not compete if I had to pay a "livable wage"... This is a reality we have here in America... Most working folks who don't have health insurance are younger folks working for independent companies...

And, yeah, it does come down to doors... "Boss Hog" is gonna have his doors and guess what??? He pays less... Get's 'u when he wants 'um and the independents get the hind teet... This is not a level playing field and for me to build a house I can't pay a "livable wage" and ***benefits*** and overcome the "Boss Hog" unfair advantage...

This is reality in the, ahhhhhh, real world where real people get up in the mornin' and go to work... And it's part of our discussion of poverty... Both my employees live under the poverty line... Am I proud of this??? Heck, no... Do I have any choice in this??? Heck, no... When the playing field is so unlevel this is what happens...

Yeah, I think that thr governemnt needs to ***govern*** the wealth distributuion and I think the *govern*ment owes as much to the working poor as ot owes to "Boss Hog"...

Yeah, this is about doors... And much more when the rich get the breaks and the rest just get broke...

Think about it, Dickey...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 08:47 PM

"The reason I make scenarios about what the evil oil companies do is to draw attention to the absurdity and unpleasantness of stating the profits of the largest company in the world as having something to do with people being poor or that the company wants people to be poor. Ergo when you see a poor person, you are automatically supposed to blame big oil companies and they must be greedy and evil. A straw man issue."

Just when I was starting to like you, you say something like this.

Let's go back to Economics 101. There is only so much money to go around: let's call that quantity 6,000,000,000 x. By the meresst chance, there are that many people on Earth. Do the math. Everyone has $1. Except for some poor bastard whose $1 was scoffed by an oil company. There is no 'automatically blame an oil company'. I just have a naturally inquiisitive mind, and when I see lots of poor people I have to wonder who took their dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 09:00 PM

Yeah, brucie... This is the crux of issue... It's all about those who have purchased a corrupt *govern*ment and let the governin' tilt the scales in their favor...

I would go so far as to say that if it weren't for corruption and the failures of our country's to *repair*, as in *repair*ations the ill-effects of slavery then we wouldn't be having this discussion...

Folks don't make poverty a career choice...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 11:59 PM

"I have to wonder who took their dollars"

So who did take their dollars?

And tell me Bobert, If you were ordering 1100 doors, How would you do it so as to avoid hurting any little guys?

You avoid answering and just throw up more Boss Hoggeries that you will also refuse to elaborate on.

In the ************real*********** world, you won't answer the questions. You said you would answer my questions and now you are going back on that.

You claimed you can tell a persons skin color by reading their opinions so who is playing a race card?

How about this quote: "Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents."

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 07 - 12:07 AM

'"I have to wonder who took their dollars"

So who did take their dollars?'

Don't fuckin' waste my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 12:22 AM

"No. The oll companies do NOT pay Alaskans a share. Read the act and you will know a little more about it."

The oil companies pay royalties into the fund, The fund invests it and pays a dividend to Alaskans.

"Contributions from oil make up the vast majority of our royalties, and high oil prices produced the largest royalty deposits to the Fund over the last two years."
http://www.apfc.org/reportspublications/pfhistory.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 12:26 AM

So who did take their dollars? Was it drug dealers, loan sharks, credit card companies? or an oil company?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 01:39 AM

"Ahhhh, as for the guarenteed national income, how can you comment that the model is unworkable as it has never been tried here in the US???"

I presume you are talking about the GMI or BIG concept that ****has**** been tested here in the US and Canada.

I didn't say it was unworkable. According to the experts "the results needed more study"

You see Bobert. I try to answer your questions but you avoid mine.

---

Each family in the test group was given a guaranteed income by the government whether anyone in the family worked or not. There were no strings attached.

The control group got no special treatment. They went about their lives in the normal manner.

Both groups were closely watched by government economists, to learn: Would the test group all quit work and go to the beach? Would they turn into lazy freeloaders? Would they work less than the control group? Would they cheat on reporting income?

The results of the tests showed the men in the test group worked six percent less hours than the men in the control group.

The results were surprisingly consistent. One of the four tests showed test-group husbands worked seven percent less hours than control-group husbands. Two tests showed they worked six percent less. The fourth test showed only one percent less.

The tests were the most massive social experiment ever undertaken. The four experiments were in:

1)        Urban areas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania from 1968-1972 (1300 families).
2)        Rural areas in Iowa and North Carolina from 1969-1973 (800 families).
3)        Gary, Indiana from 1971-1974 (1800 families).
4)        Seattle and Denver, from 1970-1978 (4800 families).

The Seattle-Denver experiment was the biggest. It covered 4879 families (2063 white, 1960 black, 856 Hispanic-American), more than the combined total in the other three tests.

3)        Gary, Indiana from 1971-1974 (1800 families).
4)        Seattle and Denver, from 1970-1978 (4800 families).

The Seattle-Denver experiment was the biggest. It covered 4879 families (2063 white, 1960 black, 856 Hispanic-American), more than the combined total in the other three tests.

Estimated reduction in work hours, by test group compared to control group in four income maintenance experiments:

           NJ-PA        IA-NC        GARY        SEA-DEN
Husbands      6%         1%         7%         6%
Wives            31%        27%        17%        17%                                
Total            13%        13%         8%         9%
Female heads --        --         2%        12%
http://www.usbig.net/papers/013-Sheahen.doc

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 01 May 07 - 02:59 AM

I can guarantee you that if I were offered a deal such as that, and didn't feel I was taking money that others needed, I would never work another day in my life. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 01 May 07 - 07:50 AM

Some poor reading skills here...

I have never advocated a "guarenteed national income" for just anyone but one for those who, ahhhhhh, ****work****....!!!

(But, Bobert, what about the fact that theei ain't enough jobs to go around??? What about the folks that get laid off when "Boss Hog" closes a pillow palnt in Charlotte and are not working by no choice of their own???)

Well, folks, this is where the ***Bobert Model*** comes into play, which, BTW, has never been tried no matter how much Dickey wants folks to believe it has... Part of the plan is to incorpoarte a "value added" tax to US corporate manufatcured goods rergardless of where they are made... Hun???...

(Well, ain't that like communism or sociailism or some kinda ism other than captitalism, Bobert???)

No, it isn't... It is socio-economic engineering... And its a way to employ Americans and irradicate most poverty in America... And it ain't welfare but workfare...

Heck, if a country can decide to roll habeas corpes, a legal priciple going back to the Magna Carta, then it can certainly find a way to level the playing field for its own citizen's pursuit of happiness...

BTW, Dickey, in my America if I ordered 3 doors prior to "Boss Hog Builders, Inc." then I should get my three doors before "Boss Hog Builders, Inc."... I mean, buttin' in line is a terrible display of bad behavior...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:17 AM

Bobert:

Have you hijacked this thread to talk about your personal frustrations about doors?

Can you answer the question about how you would order 1100 doors so as not to hurt the little guys?

If you are so ashamed about underpaying your employees, why don't you build a spec home with them, give them a share of the profits and quit being a Boss Hogg yourself?

More and more I think you are just pulling our leg with this crap. Poverty is about doors? I can't believe a grown man could be so whiney over doors.

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

Hey, listen, apl... It ain't me that keeps bringin' them up... It's you... Reread ***your*** responses to my postings over the last several days and guess what??? Give??? Seems everytimwe I post anything and come back a day later ***you*** have brought up the dpprs yet again so I have been responding to you...

BTW, I have a full time job so I don't sit 24/7 infront of a computer sop that does give you an opportunity to post on the avergae of 2 to 3 times between me havin' any pudder time...

If anyone is tryin' to highjack this, as well as many other threads, it's you... Look up "projection" in yer ol' Psch 201 text book...

But it ain't all about doors but independent contarctors who hire folks who are one ot two pay checksd away from rock bottom... If a supplier decides that I'm not as important as "Boss Hog Builders, Inc" and sends my doors to "Boss Hog Builders, Inc." then guess who get hurt???

No, don't guess 'cause you wouldn't have a clue... My workers, that is who... Right now, I'm havin' to take other smaller jobs just to keep my guys employed while I wait for the doors that I ordered before 'Boss HOg Builders, Inc" who butted in line because they could...

My guys are poor... Dirt friggin' poor... I'm having to hustle my butt off to find anyhting to keep a few beans on their family's tables...

This is a reality that you, Dickey, have no knowledge of since you are all comfy being able to be on a computer almosy any time you want while real working people are oput there working...

That, my friend, is reality...

You think it's okay for the "Boss Hogs" of the world to butt in line, cheat and buy into a governemnt that makes the rules...

No, would you like to respond to the maet and taters of my last post rather than divert attention away from a serious proposal that you would rather not have to contend with because it involves ideas that would go a long way toward elliminating poverty???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 09:57 PM

Bobert:

If it makes you happy I will vote for the ***Bobert Model*** when I have the opportunity. I will also vote for any no butting in line for doors legislation when ever I can. In the mean time I will support raising the minimum wage for citizens and legal aliens and anything that eliminates the causes of poverty.

However you have not said how you would have ordered those doors to prevent problems for others. You know what is wrong but you don't know what is right.

How about the manufacturer. Is he complicit somehow in allowing Boss Hogg to butt in line?

I am really serious about building the spec home and sharing the profits with your down and out employees. I am not just teasing you.

By the way where can I buy R15 and R21 insulation at a discount?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 07 - 12:04 AM

"Have you hijacked this thread to talk about your personal frustrations about doors?"

Hey, listen up! This thread ain't hijacked until the person who started it says so. And he ain't said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 02 May 07 - 07:40 AM

Exactly, Bruce and thanks...

Now back to the real discuss...

B;]

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 09:27 AM

NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll Poverty in America

Some Highlights:

4. How would you rate your own financial situation today? Would you say it is excellent, good, only fair, or poor?

Excellent7%
Good 43%
only Fair 38%
Poor 11%
Don't know *

6. Would you say you are not doing so well financially because of something you yourself have done or failed to do, because of bad luck, or because of things other people have done to you?
(Results for respondents who rate their own financial situation as only fair or poor)

Something I have failed to do 43%
Bad luck 22%
Things other people have done to me 20&
Don't know 15%
        
        
I draw from this that there are some people classified as poor (12%+) who don't think they are poor.

And I conclude that many of those who think they are poor, blame on themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 02 May 07 - 05:05 PM

Hi y'all. I've been doing some catching up in this thread, and have noticed a common theme. A lot of finger pointing, personal attacks, and just general complaining, but not a lot of solutions to poverty, which is the subject, is it not ? (I bet I get jumped on over this one...). Also, way too much talk about doors, and Boss Hogg (never really liked the Dukes anyhow). As far as poverty goes, I mean if anyone actually wants to discuss it, lets look at todays jobs report. The USA created 65,000 new jobs this week. However, I suspect not too many will argue with this..."full employment will do little to reduce poverty". How about a cap on rents (that might hurt the landlords who have to pay outrageous prices for real estate), okay, how about a cap on real estate prices (smoke another one, you say ?), okay then let's raise the minimum wage to compensate for higher cost of living. Great idea, but we wouldn't want to hurt the Wal-Marts of the country, would we ? (Im being facecious). Let's face it, the USA is based on capitalism, which tends to create a large gap between the rich and poor. This will always be the way it is, however, on CNBC today, they mentioned that philanthropy is on the rise, (remember Warren Buffett ?) It would only take one Bill Gates to solve poverty in the USA forever. (lets see, say 50 million poor would get about half a million each, not bad). Or maybe get the heck out of Iraq, how many billions would that save ? If the US wanted to, they could completely eliminate poverty, without hurting the rich at all, although they might have to cut back on their 'pork barrel' programs and other such wastefullness. Blame your government, I say. I think they may have another agenda other than the well-being of the people they represent.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 02 May 07 - 07:01 PM

Yup, AWG, you are right... The governemnt does have another agenda and that is serving the folks who have bought it: rich people...

This is not a government of the people an for the people... It is very much a governemnt that sucks the life outta the middle class and the poor because the rich wants it to...

This may seem to be a "complaint" against the government and, well, it very much is... but beyond that it's also an observation...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:40 PM

I learned today the Warren Buffet has given $30.7 billion to the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. Bill Gates has pledged to donate 90% of his fortune, $50 billion currently, before his death.

Not bad for the world's #1 and #2 Boss Hoggs.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 07 - 11:20 PM

"It would only take one Bill Gates to solve poverty in the USA forever. (lets see, say 50 million poor would get about half a million each, not bad)."

That would get poor people about $1000 each.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 03 May 07 - 07:46 AM

Sorry Peace, I based my figure on 25 billion donation = 500 thousand each, but actually it works out to $500, not $500 thousand (bad math, did it quick in my head, but added too many zeroes). I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 03 May 07 - 07:47 AM

I guess it will take a few more Bill Gates', but is still quite doable.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:33 AM

"because the rich wants it to" How so Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:55 PM

Dickey - For the same reason the rich wanted slaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 03 May 07 - 07:43 PM

Well said, d....

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

I thought Bobert could speak for himself and elaborate on his claims.

I can see how slave owners benefitted from having slaves but It still does not explain why rich people want the government to suck the life out of the middle class and the poor.

Bobert: You should look up Paranoid personality disorder.

Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis that denotes a personality disorder with paranoid features. It is characterized by an exaggerated sensitivity to rejection, resentfulness, distrust, as well as the inclination to distort experienced events. Neutral and friendly actions of others are often misinterpreted as being hostile or contemptuous. Unfounded suspicions regarding the sexual loyalty of partners and loyalty in general as well as the belief that one's rights are not being recognized is stubbornly and argumentatively insisted upon. Such individuals can possess an excessive self-assurance and a tendency toward an exaggerated self-reference.

You evidently believe I am picking on you but all I want is explanations for these conflicting and ubfounded things you say. Instead you duck and dodge and try to discredit me for asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:30 PM

As for the claim about Exxon/Mobile being a cause for poverty, I would like to state that drug companies make a much larger profit margin, in particular th Pfizer profit margin in 2006 15.7% VS Exxon 10.6%

While looking for the side effects of taking anti-depressabts, I found this evidence of corporate greed:

Since 1988 the pharmaceutical companies (starting with Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of "Prozac") have advertised to the people (direct to consumer) as well as to their family doctors, that if you suffer from depressive feelings, you must have a "biochemical imbalance" in your brain. The advertising finger was pointed at the neurotransmitter "serotonin", and it is used to explain nearly any emotional problem a person might have nowadays. Many other pharmaceutical companies came out with so many variants on the SSRI-antidepressant to try and capitalize on its popularity, by spreading this theory even further amongst the people. Theory? Yes, only a theory!

The Truth is that nobody in the medical field really knows if a "biochemical imbalance" is the cause of any mental disorder, and they do not know how even the hypothesized "biochemical imbalances" could produce the emotional, cognitive, and behavioural symptoms that characterize any mental disorder. Clever marketing tactics exercised on us by the pharmaceutical industry, prevailed above scientifical evidence and research. Greed, dis-respect and contempt of the population, prevailed above altruism, medical care and responsibility. It's the greatest shame of of this era. More information:

    * The Invention of the Biochemical Imbalance Myth
    * Organic conditions that are commonly misdiagnosed as mental disease
    * Can Psychiatry Be Retrieved From a Biological Approach?
    * Neuroscientist Elliot S. Valenstein Says No to Drugs ...."

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/introduction.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,RRR
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:57 PM

I am poor in the USA

However, I am rich, Rich, RICH....throughout the rest of the world.

I could hire a Canadian to do my job, collect 2/3 his pay and give him back the other 1/3....and we both live as PRINCES in our own country. The best part is neither of us pay taxes....for me...he is a "contract expence" and for him "he is on the Candian Dole" visits family twice a month to collect the cheque.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:42 PM

This is a small thing but I don't want Dickey to get or give the idea that Big Oil is giving Alaskans a share of their profits, out of the goodness of their hearts.

The State of Alaska exacts royalties from BP, Exxon, Conoco Phillips and others in the amount agreed upon. Alaska then divvies up the money for its own uses. The Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is one of the uses.

Here is a good summing up of the plan. Note that the principal is not touched.

"The Alaska Permanent Fund1 is a case study in a new concept of the role of government - that of agent to equitably distribute resource rents to the people, thereby securing democratic common heritage rights to land and natural resources.

"Purchased from Russia in 1867, Alaska became the 49th state in 1959. Under the Alaska Constitution (Article VIII. Section 2. General Authority) all the natural resources of Alaska belong to the state to be used, developed and conserved for the maximum benefit of the people.

"Ten years after statehood the first Prudhoe Bay oil lease sale yielded $900 million from oil companies for the right to drill oil on 164 tracts of state-owned land. Compared to the 1968 total state budget of $112 million, this was a huge windfall.
By legislative consensus, the original $900 million was spent to provide for basic community needs such as water and sewer systems, schools, airports, health and other social services.

"Although the oil fields were proving to be the largest in North America, Alaskans came to agree that a portion of this wealth should be saved for the future when the oil runs out. In 1976 voters approved a constitutional amendment, proposed by Governor Jay Hammond and modified by the legislature, which stated that at least 25% of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments, and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments.
"The Alaska Permanent Fund was thus established as a state institution with the task of responsibly administering and conserving oil and other resource royalties for the citizenry.
There are two parts to the Fund: principal and income. The principal is invested permanently and cannot be spent without a vote of the people. Fund income can be spent, decisions as to its use being made each year by the legislature and the Governor."

If You're Interested...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:22 PM

Dianavan: If you read what I wrote you will see that I said they would not do it voluntarily.

"Yes, the oil companies would not share in the oil revenues with Alaskans voluntarily but they never the less pay them a share and help to aleviate poverty at least in Alaska."

They pay them a share in the form of royalties paid into the fund and the fund gives it to the people.

Is there something incorrect about this statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:31 PM

Southern Man:

I heard screamin' and bullwhips crackin'..............

"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???"

Alabama Militia Planned Violent Attacks on Mexicans

10:00 H | Topics: Alabama - Immigration - Justice

Last week six men were arrested accused of being part of the Alabama Free Militia plotting a machine-gun attack on Mexicans. During the arrests federal police recovered truckloads of explosives and weapons, including 130 grenades, an improvised rocket launcher and 2,500 rounds of ammunition. Yesterday five of those arrested were denied bail and the sixth man was granted a $10,000 bond. The charges? No, not terrorism but a pretty weak charge of conspiracy to make a firearm, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

http://vivirlatino.com/

Does Southern Man feel threatened by Corporate America or Illegal immigrants?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:59 PM

pttui...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 07 - 12:07 AM

Southern man feels threatened by anything that ain't him. In the lexicon of foolish posts to Mudcat, that one ranks in the top ten.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 03:08 AM

"Is there something incorrect about this statement?" - Dickey

Well dude, I could care less about your statements. You can't even address the right people.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 04 May 07 - 07:37 AM

Yeeeeeee Hawwwwwwww !!!! Just woke and it's a wonderful day, sun shining and birds chirping (and a squirrel raiding the bird feeder). For the moment life is good. Who needs money ??

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 04 May 07 - 07:44 AM

Dianavan, you should find Bobert and Dickey and the 3 of you should have a great big cyber hug. Be kind and love each other, and be thankful for the life you all have. Peace to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 04 May 07 - 09:50 AM

Excuse me. That was Ebbie I was responding to.


"be thankful for the life you all have." I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 07 - 11:58 AM

from the Washington Post:

If Democrats Want to Help the Poor . . .

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

Republicans once preached compassion, but then went off to war. Democrats waged a war on poverty, but then lost some elections. They decided the middle class is where it's at.

But the poor are still with us, and their ranks are growing. One in eight Americans lives in poverty, which seems obscene given that the really rich are enjoying a level of privilege that makes the Gilded Age Vanderbilts look like abstemious Puritans.

"Rising inequality" is a bloodless term. But consider the facts behind the phrase: In 2005, the richest 1 percent of Americans had 19 percent of the nation's income, the largest share since 1929; the poorest 20 percent had only 3.4 percent.

The historically inclined will recall that 1929 was the year of the great Wall Street crash, which was followed by the Great Depression. History suggests that concentrating wealth and income in a small group of privileged people is bad for economic growth.

One reason our nation has maintained generally healthy levels of economic growth is our success in spreading income around -- particularly from the 1940s to the early 1970s. This created more purchasing power among an ever-larger group of Americans. We are thus tempting fate by following the formula of Andrew Mellon, the Republican Treasury secretary in the Roaring '20s who never met a tax cut for the rich he didn't like. He was rather popular until 1929.

Here's the odd thing about the present moment: As a country, we are much more practical about poverty reduction than we were in the 1960s. Most plans on offer are not utopian schemes. They promote work and would build ladders so today's poor can become tomorrow's middle class.

That's the significance of the anti-poverty report issued last week by the Center for American Progress, the think tank that is the closest thing we have to a Democratic administration in exile. The report deserves more attention than it has gotten, not because it breaks new ground but precisely because it brings together some of the most pragmatic ideas on poverty reduction. The task force that prepared it included veteran liberals such as Peter Edelman and Angela Glover Blackwell but also resolute middle-of-the-roaders such as the Rev. Floyd Flake, a champion of faith-based approaches to poverty, and Charles Kolb, president of the pro-business Committee for Economic Development.

Their first recommendations aren't revolutionary, just sensible: They'd raise the minimum wage, and they'd expand the earned-income tax credit, a program supported by Ronald Reagan and expanded by Bill Clinton. That tax credit has done more than any other measure to keep working Americans out of poverty. The task force would also make unionization easier, on the theory that giving workers the power to bargain for themselves is better than a government handout.

More should be done for 16- to 24-year-olds near or below the poverty line who are out of school and out of work. In 2005, the report says, there were 1.7 million of them, a number big enough to be alarming but small enough to give public policy a chance to make a difference.

Other recommendations are designed to promote upward mobility through expanded child-care assistance, "early education for all" and stepped-up efforts to make higher education more accessible. The panel would modernize the unemployment insurance system and other programs for low-income people that date back 30 years or more. Capitalists should like their proposals to give the poor more access to financial services and expand their ability to save. And to prevent a new crime wave, the task force urges us to do a lot more to "help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities."

Will all this cost money? You bet, about $90 billion a year -- a little over one-fifth of the annual cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, many of which benefit the rich. This would not break the bank of a country with a $13 trillion gross domestic product, and it's for programs that cannot be demonized as more of "the failed old liberalism."

The new Democratic majority in Congress seems determined to "fix" the alternative minimum tax, which unfairly pushes many middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers into brackets they shouldn't be in. That's just fine. But these taxpayers are still doing reasonably well after taxes. A lot of Americans in the ranks of the working poor are not doing well, and they are people with whom Democrats claim a special bond.

And it would be awfully nice if Republicans revisited their commitment to compassion. As President Bush knew in 2000, swing voters like that sort of thing.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 07 - 08:09 PM

Thanks for the article, bb...

I haven't gotten to the op ed page as yet today (and might not seein' as I have a gig tomorrow to get ready for) but E.J. has it purdy much right on....

Thanks again...

BTW, the Repubs don't get 100% of the blame... Well over 50% maybe but the Dems ain't done jack either...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 05 May 07 - 07:40 AM

BTW, if one looks at some of the principle componemts of what the Center for American Progress has propsosed you see that the crux of what they have come up with is not unlike the "Bobert Plan"...

In fixing and expanding the "earned income tax credits" program thaey are, in essence" creating a "guarenteed minimum income" for folks who ***choose*** to work...

By raising the minumum wage they understand that fighting poverty is a public/private partnership and that employers will be asked to make some sacrifices in the deal...

And by expanding "child care" programs, something that I've been talking about for months now, they understand the ***reality*** that our country has way too manmy single parent households and that employement is not possible in poor households without this greatly needed help...

Again, thanks beardedbruce (thought I never say that...) and thanks to E.J. Dionne for his thoughful op ed piece...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:20 AM

"***reality*** that our country has way too manmy single parent households and that employement is not possible in poor households without this greatly needed help..."

I agree with this 100% but I would like to point out that merely supporting these single parent households and making them successful eventually causes more single parent households and increases the need for support rather than to decrease it. Therefore it does decrease poverty in a temporary semse but increses the need for overall assistance. To me, that does not translate to reducing poverty.

The poor must be educated to the point where they can make the proper choices in life. Giving them a saftey net so they can get immediate gratification without any negative consequences is not education but a stopgap measure to cover for a lack of education. To me the carrot on a stick approach means that poor people are inherently dumb and need to be treated like subhumans.

I shudder to think of the future of a society where people can do any stupid, self destructive thing they want to do without suffering any consequences.

Yes, there are business sectors and corporations that prey on poor people, middle class too for that matter, in collusion with the government through lobbying and contributions and outright corruption. I think they should be identified and corrections should be made.

A general overall comdenation and blaming of rich folks, white folks, slavery, corporations etc, is as wrong as blaming poor people for crime.

I get this mental picture of people marching up to Frankenstein's castle with pitchforks and torches ready to mob the castle or people looting stores during a riot to get what is "rightfully theirs". Civil disorder will only result in more civil disorder. That is what civilization is about.

One first step would be to somehow take the big money out of political campaigns. Why should it cost so much to campaign in this day of the internet? It reminds me of racing these days where the group that can spend the most money wins and not the driver and team with the most skill. Money driven politics needs to be replaced with results driven politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 05 May 07 - 02:36 PM

"...supporting these single parent households and making them successful eventually causes more single parent households..." - Dickey

Where is your proof for that outlandish statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 07 - 02:53 PM

"I agree with this 100% but I would like to point out that merely supporting these single parent households and making them successful eventually causes more single parent households and increases the need for support rather than to decrease it. Therefore it does decrease poverty in a temporary semse but increses the need for overall assistance. To me, that does not translate to reducing poverty.

"The poor must be educated to the point where they can make the proper choices in life. Giving them a saftey net so they can get immediate gratification without any negative consequences..." Dickey

I suppose by that, you are saying that if a prospective single parent should have a guaranteed income, said parent would happily troop off and set up a separate household.

Tell me, would you agree that there are parents in this country who, in spite of abuse and neglect, do not feel able to survive financially on their own? If getting that income makes it possible for that person to leave the existing situation, I say more power to her, or him.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 03:20 PM

"Where is your proof for that outlandish statement" Does the number keep increasing?

"I suppose by that, you are saying that if a prospective single parent should have a guaranteed income, said parent would happily troop off and set up a separate household."

Offspring of said parent would happily troop off and set up another single parent household, not necessarily by choice but for the same reasons they were in a single family household. Is this not happening?