BS: Poverty in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: mg
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:58 AM

I don't buy that..that people are hoping for an underclass. How does it benefit them? More taxes? More crime, which is not a necessary aspect of poverty...but there is one thing that might go through peoples' minds..and that is...my son and now my daughter..is not going to fight in any wars so we just better have some people who will do it instead..so for that reason, which I have never heard anyone voice before, and I think it is subconscious until this very moment...I think people do accept behaviors which almost gaurantee poverty (drugs, crime, children out of wedlock)so that there is a "class" of people who will do the fighting. I think there is no other reason that people would want other people to be poor..they might have to pay more for garbage removal, for dairy products, etc., but they would pay fewer taxes and would be safer and towns would be prettier. They are allowed to be kept poor, and many things stated on this particular thread will keep people poor and drag more into their midst besides...for only one reason I can think of, and that is to die so that your son or daughter might not have to. And no, I don't think this is nice or good civic practice or even humane but I think it is happening on a subconscious level. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Wordsmith
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:03 AM

I followed that story about those underfed kids from start to finish, and it was a real travesty, but it has absolutely nothing to do with poverty, and belongs in a blog about child abuse. The family, as photos I'm sure are available online, was a picture of contrasts. The foster parents hid behind their church, who vouched for them, until the truth came out. Many were suckered by this poor excuse for foster parents, but, again, this does not belong in this thread.

I think baiters are in it just for the superiority they think it affords them...*hint*...*hint.*

BTW, that family was just one in several who featured prominently in the investigation of DYFS in NJ. Another, along similar lines, was a family who already had several children of their own, upper middle class, who adopted two brothers from Russia, then starved them and chained them to a leaky water pipe in a cement basement when they were "bad." One of the boys died down there, which is how the story broke. These people were upright, born-again Christians. It just amazes me how people can be blind to the harm they do regardless of their beliefs.

Now, back to poverty: I read a story in a local paper during my absence...about a podiatrist who, once a year, donates free foot exams and brand new shoes to the men in a homeless shelter. Now that's a doable and very practical project. I like practical solutions. Of course, one has to volunteer such services.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:05 AM

Well said, Janie. Somehow this discussion went from poverty to racisim but it is our socio-economic system that creates an underclass. By now, we should all know that if you classify people according to gender, race or class; its the women in every group who are the most frequent victims of poverty. Thats why I say that if we truly want to help, we must focus our energy on helping the women.

Healthy and happy women produce healthy and happy children.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:12 AM

The "poor pool" is for the rich to dip into Mary when they have a thirst & after they (the poor) are used up then they can go off to the wars & dies. The poor pool is a rich & valuable resource. The grinding of them is what this nation was built on & what keeps it wheels greased & it's rich & powerful so alive & healthy & so few & the poor so many. Crime is benifical & so are drugs, gambling, a cheap labor force to draw from, cheap housing for cheap workers, low wages & no benifits, migrant workers. Look at what ails the poor the most & follow the money back to the source. We will not drain that pool just to put out the fire!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:44 AM

MG, I don't think the vast majority of people in a society sit back and consciously say-"We need some more poor people." I am saying that left to its own devises, and with the way the human mind operates (catagorizing is a primary way the human brain organizes data), this is how societies and social structure tend to evolve. It happens in places where there actually is not enough to go around also. However, when we as individuals in a society are willing to try to take a look at our assumptions and the effects of those assumptions (values and beliefs) on others and the social structure, we can then attempt to change them.

I'm really rushed now and don't have time to develop this right now. If it still seems relevant when I get back tonight, I'll expand.

And Mary, I think you are right on target about the poor as cannon fodder also--it is pretty much all the same process.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:20 AM

"Somehow this discussion went from poverty to racisim" -

SOMEHOW one specific "contributor" derailed an interesting and impassioned discussion on poverty and turned it into another re-hashing of the same tired old arguments about race ...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:45 PM

"If you can't shut 'um up opne way, do it another is what the right wing in America is all about...

"Yeah, I don't have to give them niggers nuthin'... Hey, I didn't do that..." Yeah, this has been the battle cry of the rich, the greedy, the powerfull...

What a bunch of totally anti-human, greedy, uncompassionate, unChristain crap..."


Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist.

In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book that he proudly describes as "a polemic."

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:38 PM

9.8% poverty rate for Asians in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2006/cb06ff-06.pdf page 2

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:51 PM

A Framework for Understanding Poverty

You can read part of this book on line.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:16 AM

Dickey - Do you ever read what anyone else has written or are you just writing to listen to yourself? At least I hope you understand your posts because they make no sense to me. Like someone said earlier, try shouting down a well.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:01 AM

A social system is a prime example of an entity that is larger than the sum of its parts.

A society, being the largest human social system, is also the most complex.

The institutions, both formal and informal, that provide the main framework for a societal system usually serve two functions --protection and control. The paradox or dialectic of these two functions is quite apparent, and reflects the paradox inherent in any human social system, be it a system of two (for instance, a married couple) of several hundred (mudcat) or millions (a society).

Imbedded in that dialectic is another--the autonomy of the individual vs. the need of our species for social structure to survive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm realizing I'm a long way from drawing my conclusions, and getting to that point may be so dry and convoluted that I'll be the only one still awake when I get there. I don't want to kill this thread by accident. And I'm guessing most people reading this thread are already knowledgable about social theory and social systems theory, and don't need a 101 course from me to see what I am trying to articulate.   

Where I'm ultimately headed is that poverty and oppression is an effect of society, any society of any size, as opposed to an intention of that society, or an intention of the vast majority of the individuals who make up that society. In macro-terms, focusing on blame-whether you are blaming the poor guy for being poor, or the rich guy for being rich, is probably not very useful to any effort to mitigate poverty.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

Janie - You are right about the social system and you are right about "focusing on blame-whether you are blaming the poor guy for being poor, or the rich guy for being rich, is probably not very useful to any effort to mitigate poverty," but...

I do blame governments who care more about the interests of the rich than they do about providing for the needs of the poor. I also blame people who support politicians who claim to be Christian but spend tax money on death and destruction while ignoring the poverty at home. I also think it is too damn easy to be smug in the comfort of your own home and assume that you are entitled to health care and education, while others are not. I also blame those who do nothing to promote change.

I also know that I can only do what I can do and I try very hard to remember that but sometimes emotion wins.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:51 PM

D is absolutely correct... Beneath this all government certainly has its hand in the mess... Bottom line, governemnt has evolved into existing to serve the monied class... The real "welfare mentality" isn't among our poor but our rich... They just don't get it... All the breaks are aimed at keeping them rich and in trun, they give a "kick-back" to the folks in government thru very generous campaign contributions...

The rich know this... They knoew it all too well and that is why they not only buy off politicans but they now fund blogs that go out and try to change the conversation... Right here in out little corner of Paradise we have several ***shills*** for the ruling class... These people have one thing in common and that is they won't carry on a converstaion... They will, however, rpovide lots of links (mostly funded by the ruling class) to try to turn the conversation away from the realities of poverty...

Now, I'd like to say a few things about the cannon-fodder coming from poor families... Well, okay, I'll admit that most kids from the very poorest families don't finish school and don't end up in the military... It's the kids from the families, who while being poor, aren't as poor and where the kids parent/s keeps them in school long enough for "No Kid Left Unrecruited" to take effect... Kids are ***targeted*** by recruiters in the 8th grade and the usual speil is "Okay, kid, we care about you... We're gonna give you lots of $$$ and we are going to provide you with educational opportunities..."

That's purdy much the deal and so, yeah, lots of folks in Iraq tonight are from these families... Poor??? Yeah... The way outta the ghetto goes thru Iraq... It's sad but it's also true... Problem with this is that it does go thru Iraq and there is no promse that these kids will come home alive or not disabled...

But I don't want to end this post on Iraq as we have enough war threads but will reiterate that the rich will stop at nothin' to get their way... They have had their way since the early 80's when they called off the Great Society...

We won't make any progress but continue to seeing rising per capita poverty rates climb until we get back to the ***good war***..

..the Great Society...

There are those here who can't quite seem to get it that it is going to take some redisribution of our national wealth to fight and perhaps elliminate poverty... This really shouldn't be rocket science but for those folks it seems to be way over these folks heads...

Like I said, it ain't rocket science...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:25 PM

Well, I don't know if I am a shill or not but I certainly will not carry on a conversation with you because you are just too rude, pure and simple.

The way to fix and eliminate poverty is to respectfully listen to people with ideas to contribute, and assume that they have good intentions and perhaps experience in what they are talking about. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:33 AM

Bobert: Your accusation of there being ***shills*** here is like blaming things on evil spirits.

I sir, am not a shill. I could use the same sort of accusations to explain away your position and to discredit you but I prefer a more realistic approach to the problems in life. You have good intentions and I am never going to make fun of them. You have done a lot of work to help poor people and I am not going to make fun of that.

My intention is to point out the contradictions I see in what people present as facts. Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists, rich philanthropists, foreign governments etc. all have had good intentions in trying to solve the problem of poverty for a long time. They have not been able to do it.

In Russia they had a whole revolution against the powerful and the rich aristocracy. That didn't do it for them. In China, 2 million people starved to death while poverty was being eliminated in a great classless society. Was it the fault of the rich people in China?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:35 AM

What's this? Poor Asians?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

Dickey,

No, you are very much a "shill"... And, worse, you are a "true beliver shill"... From the looks of things here you support 100% of George Bush's policies... I can't remember you ever breaking ranks... That, my friend, is a "pitchman", i.e. "shill"...

mg,

Sorry you think I'm rude... Yeah, I've tried in the most delicate ways, including my terribly embarrassing experience at a W@hite Panther gathering, to get you to open your mind and become more "client centered"... That was meant to be helpful...It was not meant to be rude but apparently you considered it to be...

As for the shots I take at Dickey, yeah, sometimes they get a tad edgy but no more eddy than his to me...

Back to Dickey,

Revolutions by their very nature aren't for ever... Thomas Jefferson once said that for a country to stay healthy it needed an occasional revolution... Okay, I think he was speakin' in terms of revolution of ideas but none the less, revolutions have moved our country forward... We had the industrial revolution in 1n the 1860's... And we had a cultural revolution a hundred years later...

So to equate the need for another revolution of new ideas and policies in the US with the current status of either China or Russia is another apples & oranges red herring...

More later... Lunch hour is over...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

Bobert:

Tell me which one of those revolutions eliminated poverty?

And yes I do disagree with Bush on some things like his refusal to enforce laws against illegal immigration. It creats more poor people and makes the legal imigrants poorer by driving down their wages too.

Your quotation of statistics like how much money the largest corporation in the world made is a red herring and your blaming poverty on the rich is a straw man issue.

Not a single answer in the lot. Why do you claim the money for school breakfasts needs to be brought back when it was never taken away? Do you make statements like that out of ignorance or is it propaganda?

At one time you stated apartments were $1300 minimum. I pointed out that they average $1300. There is a range of $585 to many thousands up around Rock Creek Park. You still insist that poor people can't afford an average apartment. Who is supposed to rent the lowest price apartments Bobert? Seems to me people rent apartments according to their income or are all apartments supposed to cost the same?

You don't have answers so you try to discredit me by claiming I am being paid.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:43 PM

Dickey,

None, but most have at least closed the gap between the haves and have-nots... That is the challenge for the US... There has never been such a wide divide...

As for the apartment "up around Rock Creek Park", it's way the heck up... I mean, almost to the beltway... That area is a notoriously slummy area... I know, I drive that way every August for the DC Blues Society's Festival... Let's put it this way,k it's so bad that you wouldn't last 24 hours there without becoming a statistic... Have you been there??? Would you want to riase a family there... Would you as a qworking mother who has to catch the 6:15 Metro bus every mornin' want to stand at a bus stop in that area???

I mean, lets get real here, Dickey... This is the projects without the Section 8 money...

When I use the twerm average it means just that... That figure was printed in the Washington Post several months ago... Average means that you take all the available housing in an area, add up all the monthly rentsa nd then divided by the number of apartments that were available... Yeah, it factors in the Capitol Heights neighborhoods and the Adams Morgan neighborhoods and the posh Georgetown neighborhoods but it also factors in "up around Rock Creek's and lots of neighborhoods in NE, where BTW, I have gone to play blues going back many, many years at Archie Edwards Barber Shop... I know DC, Dickey... I grew up 'round DC so pleeeeze don't gettin' all righteous about where folks can live fairly safely in that town...

My largest hope for you, my friend, is that one mornin' you will wake up as a 40 year old balck woman making $8.00 an hour, no husband, three kids and trying to make yer way thru life in the DC area... Yeah, that is my hope... If you had to be this woman fir just one day, you'd get it...

But that won't happen and you know it won't happen and that is why you feel all smug and comfy in yer safe little world...

That's one thing about poverty... Rich folks and their shills just don't get it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:34 PM

Heric just explained a bit of the new bankruptcy law in (sub prime thread)

With a record number of foreclosures people will be falling into the newly created black hole of the BRAND NEW bankruptcy law.

I don't know enough about it but it sounds horrid.




I predicted 5 years ago that the jewel in Crown of the great Republican Heist , after taking away welfare, pensions, social securty, and stock market investments (billionaire hedge funds exempt) would be stealing people's homes in a great flood of foreclosures.

In another 5 years Banks will be so house property rich that its possible they may suffer because of it. I hope they choke on it.

Hmm, people might just need to move to Mexico and Canada   8*p

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:29 PM

Yo, Donuel...

Tell Dickey what it's like 'bout 4 miles north of where you live... You know the neighborhood up there... He thinks its like middle class, 'er somethin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:36 AM

Hi dianavan--I'm right on the same page with you re: getting angry.

I think most of us experience anger as the most energetic of all our emotions. At least I do. That energy is power. Like all power, it can be wielded for a useful purpose. Like all power, it can be used indiscriminantly (I absolutely can not spell anymore--don't know if I spelled that right or not) and be ultimately self-defeating. Like all power, it can be discharged randomly, leaving behind nothing but chaos.

When I am angry, I try to remind myself that anger belongs on the bus, but not in the driver's seat. If anger is in the driver's seat, it will at least take a wrong turn, and will often run into a ditch. It is not uncommon for the bus to wreak. With me on it. And I forgot the seatbelt.

Martin Luther King Jr. chose to direct his anger at the systems that supported social injustice instead of directing it at 'Whitey.' The effective power of the civil rights movement was due to the ability of him and other leaders to take the energy generated by the anger of his people at the social injustices they endured and focus it in a deliberate way to effect social change. He used that energy to turn anger into power equal to the power of money and used it just as deliberately to influence public policy. He rejected stereotyping, and was careful in his public actions and utterances to refrain from stereotyping Whites. He pointed his finger at systems and institutions, not at people. In doing so, he raised the consciousness of a nation. Clearly he did not harness all of that energy. I don't know that he wanted to. When young, angry, disenfranchised blacks rioted in the inner cities of our nation, the blind and indiscriminant explosion of their anger caused terrible damage to the businesses and infrastructure of their own communities, but the fear those riots generated, in combination with a greater and more refined use of that energy was quite effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:03 AM

Martin Luther King Jr. was a master manipulator. Good on him.

He kept his 'eyes on the prize.'

Kennedy's "War on Poverty" and Johnson's "Great Society" programs arose directly out of the civel rights movement. By focusing on issues rather than on people, by declining to demonize whites, King's tactics and ability to channel the energy of anger, he minimized resistance and made common cause with others involved in social injustice, or effected by social injustice, and maximized their collective power.

If his approach had been exclusively anger-based confrontation--"You piss me off, you jerk" the whole movement would have suffered and been less effective. the defensiveness that is a natural reaction to personal attack and stereotyping would have substancially reduced his ability to form coalitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Wordsmith
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:20 AM

I was just on the food thread, and you know what strikes me as absurd? The fact that people keep ragging on the poor for their food choices, as if they had alternatives. I'm not poor, yet I can't afford most fish these days, unless it's got Mrs. Paul's or Gorton's on the package. (I prefer the latter, actually.) Chicken, which used to be the be-all and end-all for low prices, along with ground beef, is now through the roof, unless you count the higher priced cuts of meat like lamb, etc.

What can poor people buy? Pasta...large loaves of white bread...potatoes...I could go on, but you get the drift, I'm sure. Not to mention junk food, which is extremely tempting, and no wonder why.

I've been in grocery stores in poorer areas of the US where people made rude comments because someone used food stamps to buy chips and beer. Not that I approve if that's all they buy, but who's business is it of theirs? How can we teach nutrition if the prices are too high to make it realistic?

How can you get people to buy prescriptions if it means giving up something else? I'm thinking about Vets, here. BTW, the waiting period for prescriptions used to be 6 months where I used to live.

Fresh vegetables? I don't know about you, but where I live, they're at a premium at the grocery store, which is why I got a membership at Costco's. But that price keeps rising, too. I get more pound per buck there, and the quality is better, but what are the poor supposed to do? They can't even get there, if they could split a membership.

I did some volunteer work before Thanksgiving quite a while ago with a group I belonged to. We went to grocery stores and asked for pledges of food, turkeys and all of the fixings or whatever the store manager/owner wanted to donate. We signed them up and then went back to pick up and distribute the food. I was quite pleased with the results. However, when we were in the initial phases, I had a couple of markets I had to visit that were in poorer areas, and I can't tell you how disgusted I was by the lack of quality of their produce and their meat departments. The meat was literally green in the wrapper. Not just one pack, but almost all. Spoiled fruit and vegetables...it was a travesty. We only asked them for canned or frozen products, and at that we were reluctant. I'm sure that still exists. Is it any wonder the poor react the way they do?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM

Some perspective(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:35 AM

One in Five Children in Rural America Lives in Poverty


Read it and weep.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:16 AM

I can tell you from experience that a child that lives in rural poverty is richer than a child that lives in urban poverty.

If you're poor in a rural area, chances are there is a garden in your backyard and room for you to run. Most likely you have a roof over your head. You might even get to fish and hunt.

An urban area probably provides better educational opportunities but if your food and shelter are lacking, its hard to take advantage of those opportunities.

All in all, I'd rather be poor in a rural area. At least you can fend for yourself and you don't have to live in fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:39 AM

Well, first of all, I agree with Wordsmith's post with the one exception... Food Stamps *cannot* be used to by beer... But, yeah, you go to innercity mom 'n pop grocery stores in the poor neigfhborhoods and there isn't much actual nutrition to be found in 'um... So when yer choices are limited to this junk food or that junk food yer more than likely going to end up buying, ahhhh, junk food...

As for "anger"... Oh, boy... I kinda need to talk about this because it is a very real danger for anyone working in the human services field... But I don't have time this mornin' to get into this... And I'm not too sure how I want to approach it without makin' some folks angry with me... So let me think about it today as I play "equipment operator" and push dirt around... Hopefully by tonight I'll work up the right way to talk about this and the courage to talk about it but...

... it is very real as it relates to those who have made a decision to except lousy pay to do some of society's *dirty work*...

Later...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:51 PM

Well, not much activity since last here but I know there are at least a couple folks reading this thread who have PM'd me so I reckon I'll delve into this "anger" issue...

Now, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself here and these are observations I made during my years in social work, working as a jail house teacher and working in an inhouse drug treatment program...

What I want to talk a little about here is how folks in "human services" deal with anger... And I think it is relevant to the discussion because it is these folks who are on the front lines... Not their supervisors or their supervisors but the actual case workers, case managers, social workers otr whatever job title has been given to folks who are in "the field", which means that they are making the home visits and doing the heavy liftibn in dealin' with folks...

When I was with Adult Services in Richomnd as a "case manager" the job required either a MSW (Masters in Social Work) or a BA and x-number of years of related experience so we aren't talking here about folks with little or no eductaional backgrounds but college eductaed professional people...

Folks who I knew came into the Adult Services with great enthusiasm thinking they were going to make the difference... BTW, very little in college trains folks for the realities of the job unless one was fortunate enough to have had some practicum during their studies... But folks came in isealistic and that ain't a bad thing...

Then reality sets in real quick... Heavy case loads and little resources... I carried between 50 and 65 cases... That is one heck of a lot of paper work if I didn't do anything else... Just typing reporst of the stuff I was doing fir folks and keeping up with the C.I.D.'s (Client Information Documents) took up 10 hours every week...

But the further one gets into the system the less idealism that remains with them... I saw it repeatedly with new hires and waht I also saw was as folks figured out that they weren't really going to have the time or resources to really get folks moving toward independent living they would become angry...

Now, these folks are the same folks who are out there every day on the front lines and, yeah, most of them are angry... But the interesting part of this is how people deal with not being able to change the world and make things better and what I saw were of folks who had been in "the field" for, oh, 5 years....

...and, sorry, but I need go for a walk with the P-Vine thru the geardens now as the day is winding down so...

I'll be back... This may take a while...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:43 AM

Hi bobert,

From what you have had time to post so far, I don't have any idea about where you are headed, although I will be interested to see. I just want to say that I am not talking about an 'anger' issue. I am talking about 'power' issues.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 03:08 AM

One of the things King (and Abernathy) did so well was organize poor people so that their 'anger' could be directed and used to create 'power' for themselves. That was part of the reason King was killed, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 08:34 AM

Well, danged pudder... I wrote a long post that would have tied the begining of the story with the end but when I hit "submit" all that happened was it went back to the main page and the post didn't stick... I'll have to muster up the time & courage later to rewrite it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:36 AM

Peace,

I think you are entirely right. From what I have read, King himself knew that he was likely to be killed, and made a decision to take that risk. I'm not a King scholar--I'm pulling from what I have read and heard over the years in newpapers, lay literature, interviews with other civil rights leaders who were close to him.

But what he did, in addition to directing the anger of his own people to useful purpose, was manipulate the carelessly wielded anger of his opponents, such that the civil rights movement benefited. He used their own anger against them. Even unto death.

I don't mean to say he chose death. Nor do I mean to say that his death brought more momentum for change than would have resulted had he continued to live and lead. What I am saying is that he did not squander his death.

Gotta go. More later. I'm sure everyone is waiting with bated breath:^)

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:43 AM

It is chilling to listen to the sermon King gave in a Memphis church the night before he was assassinated ... "I have been to the mountain; I have seen the Promised Land" (reminder: reference to Moses, who led the Chosen People to the Promised Land, went up the mountain to see it, knowing he wasn't going to live to reach it himself). It is essentially about how will not be with his followers much longer; it will be up to them to carry on ...

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

Well, still don't have time to rewrite that rest of the "anger" post seein' as it's half time of the Ohio State-Georegtown game but i'd just like to point out that Dr. King's ace in the hole was none other than, LBJ... Yeah, love Lyndon or hate him, he did have Dr. King's back and I really think that when Dr. King was gunned down in Memphis that it hurt LBJ right down to his heart...

Now back to b-ball... Sorry...

B~

p.s. Guest, meself... A must book is "A Testament of Hope" which is availbale cheap in paper back and has almost every essay and speech that Dr. King ever wrote or gave... It is filled with stuff that will give you the chills...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 07:29 PM

You nailed it, buddy.

"For Johnson, civil rights loomed as the most intractable legislative problem of the decade. The Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, ordering an end to segregated schools, had outraged Southern senators. They circulated a Southern Manifesto urging massive resistance to school integration, but Johnson declined to sign it. In 1957 President Eisenhower proposed a tough civil rights bill that Southerners adamantly resisted. Johnson recognized the symbolic value of enacting the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, but he feared that a protracted filibuster would split his party. His removal of the key enforcement provisions of the law steered it through to enactment. Not until 1964, when Johnson was president, would a strong civil rights act finally win passage."

Although he took lots of flak--much of it deserved--over thge Vietnam War, and despite doing his best he mostly just managed to say "Nigrah", he stood up for laws that enabled a more meaningful civil rights to be realized by people who needed it. There were then and are now many things I admire about Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:58 PM

Bobert says poor folks can't afford the rent of an average $1300 per month apartment but he has no answer about who is supposed the rent the apartments renting below $1300 down to $575. His only explanation is to call me a smug rich man's shill.

The part of town I was referring to was like Connecticut avenue whre rents are $4000 and above with a door man and all.

Now if I was to wake up as a 40 year old balck woman making $8.00 an hour, no husband, three kids and trying to make yer way thru life in the DC area, How would I have gotten into that position?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM

End Welfare Lite as We Know It
It's been nearly 10 years since President Bill Clinton signed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. The anniversary has been the occasion for various news stories and opinion pieces, most of them praising the law's success in reducing welfare dependency.
        
And it's true: welfare caseloads have fallen an astounding 60 percent since reform efforts began. But even as a strong supporter of welfare reform, I find it difficult to muster unqualified enthusiasm for the law and how it has been carried out.

In the years immediately before the law's passage, welfare dependency seemed out of control. From 1989 to 1994, for example, caseloads rose 34 percent. Analysts argued over how much to blame the weak economy; worsening social problems, primarily out-of-wedlock births and drug addiction; and lax agency administration. But few claimed that another 1.3 million people on welfare was a good thing.

Responding to the growing concern, Mr. Clinton campaigned for president on a promise to end welfare as we know it. But he had in mind something far different from what the Republicans handed him in 1996. Nevertheless, he signed the legislation that ended the welfare entitlement and gave states wide discretion, as long as they put 50 percent of recipients in work-related activities and imposed a five-year limit on financial aid.

Many feared a social calamity. But in the years since, although researchers have strived mightily, they've found only small pockets of additional hardship. Even better, the earnings of most single mothers actually rose.

These twin realities--decreased caseloads and little sign of serious additional hardship--are why both Republicans and Democrats think welfare reform has been a success.

But the results are more mixed. Caseloads fell, yet they did so seemingly regardless of what actions the states took. They fell in states with strong work-first requirements, and those without them; in states with mandatory work programs, and those without them; in states with job training programs, and those without them; and in states with generous child care subsidies, and those without them.

In fact, the consensus among academic researchers is that it took more than welfare reform to end welfare as we knew it. If one looks at all the studies, the most reasonable conclusion is that although welfare reform was an important factor in caseload reduction--accounting for 25 percent to 35 percent of the decline--the strong economy was probably more important (35 percent to 45 percent). Expanded aid to low-income, working families, primarily through the Earned Income Tax Credit, was almost as important (20 percent to 30 percent).

What's more, the best estimates are that only about 40 percent to 50 percent of mothers who left welfare have steady, full-time jobs. Another 15 percent or so work part time. According to surveys in various states, these mothers are earning about $8 an hour. That's about $16,000 a year for full-time employment. It is their story that the supporters of welfare reform celebrate, but $16,000 is not a lot of money, especially for a mother with two children.

What about the other 50 percent of families who left welfare? Well, some mothers did not need welfare, perhaps because they were living with parents or a boyfriend, and some left because of intense pressure from caseworkers. More troubling, about a quarter of those who leave welfare return to the program, with many cycling in and out as they face temporary ups and downs.

In addition, when they're off welfare, some of these families survive only because they still receive government assistance--through food stamps (an average of more than $2,500), the Women, Infants and Children program (about $1,800 for infants and new mothers), Supplemental Security Income (an average of over $6,500), or housing aid (an average of $6,000). Their children also qualify for Medicaid. In reality, these families are still on welfare because they are still receiving benefits and not working--call it welfare lite.

So, yes, welfare reform reduced welfare dependency, but not as much as suggested by the political rhetoric, and a great deal of dependency is now diffused and hidden within larger social welfare programs.

As a result, public and political concern about dependency has largely disappeared.

The tougher work and participation requirements added in this year's reauthorization of the law could help states address the deeper needs of welfare families. But many states are already planning to avoid these new strictures with various administrative gimmicks, like placing the most troubled and disorganized families in state-financed programs where federal rules do not apply. This would only further obscure the high levels of continuing dependency.

For now, welfare reform deserves only two cheers. Not bad for a historic change in policy, but not good enough for us to be even close to satisfied.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:05 AM

Interesting article and interesting perspective, Dickey. I would guess there is some validity in support of the point of view it represents. However, it is not an objective survey of the research, and does not include any citations of the research on which it purports to base its conclusions. It is opinion mascarading as fact. It leaves me with no way to judge to what extent the conclusions he draws are valid. As such, it is only a piece of propoganda.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:31 AM

I view the article Dickey cut and pasted above as propoganda. An arguement could perhaps be made that it is actually an op-ed piece. If it is weighed as an op-ed piece giving one man's informed opinion, it is a unidimensionally informed opinion. I am much more likely to thoughtfully consider another pov that is multidimensionally informed, especially when the subject is an extremely multidimensional issue such as poverty.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:03 AM

Is Joseph J Besharov connected in any way with the American Enterprise Institute?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:07 AM

If so, here are the companies and corporations who support the AEI.


'Most of AEI's Board of Directors are CEOs of major companies, including ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, and Dow Chemicals.

Big donors include the top conservative foundations, including Smith-Richardson Foundation, the Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Corporate supporters have included: General Electric Foundation, Amoco, Kraft Foundation, Ford Motor Company Fund, General Motors Foundation, Eastman Kodak Foundation, Metropolitan Life Foundation, Proctor & Gamble Fund, Shell Companies Foundation, Chrysler Corporation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, General Mills Foundation, Pillsbury Company Foundation, Prudential Foundation, American Express Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Corning Glass Works Foundation, Morgan Guarantee Trust, Smith-Richardson Foundation, Alcoa Foundation, and PPG Industries.

Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron, was until recently on the board of trustees of American Enterprise Institute. Other famous former trustees include Vice President Dick Cheney.

AEI Fellows and Scholars [partial list]
Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.

David Frum, a presidential speechwriter for President Bush, contributing editor to the right-wing magazine Weekly Standard.

Christina Hoff Sommers, anti-feminist crusader, author of Who Stole Feminism? How Women Betrayed Women.

Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a book that asserted inherent intelligence differences between the races.

Ben J. Wattenberg, host of PBS weekly show "Think Tank."'

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:17 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey - PM
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM


Look at the time of the post; look at the day. Dang. Dickey has a sense of humour. Good one, sport.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 03:20 AM

Rats. I too just lost a post.

I mispoke in my last post. The propoganda piece Dickey posted is not about poverty, it is about welfare dependency, a related but separate issue.

One way to reduce welfare dependency is to reduce poverty. However, while a reduction in welfare dependency may indicate a reduction in poverty, we can't assume that. The reasons for reductions in welfare rolls require very careful and thorough analysis before a reduction can be considered a valid indicator of a reduction in poverty.

It is obvious that there is some common ground. I see it. I want Dickey to see it. Or the president of Exxon to see it. If I allow my anger to be in control, or if I use my anger unskillfully and thoughtlessly, there is a strong risk that I will both waste some of my own power and resources, and deny myself access to the resources available to Mr. Exxon. Where common ground is concerned, I don't want to be the only one left standing on it. I don't want my anger to create or contribute to any barrier to me being able to exploit that common ground in service to the goal of reducing poverty.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 03:26 AM

"WELFARE RATES

- Single person, expected to work*: $397 per month.

- Single parent with one child, expected to work: $707 per month, plus $107 from the national child benefit, for a total of $814.

- Single parent with two kids, one over 12, one under 12, expected to work: $856, plus $198 national child benefit.

- Family of two adults and two children, one over 12, one under, expected to work, $1,053, plus $198 national child benefit.

- 'Expected to work' is defined as someone with no physical or mental barrier to employment.

Rates for people not expected to work are slightly higher. For example, for a single parent with one child, not expected to work, it's $839, plus $107.

*******************************************************

The above figures in Alberta are from 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:54 AM

Dickey,

Get on the friggin' airplane and I 'll pick you up at the airport and give you a tour of the neighborhoods where you can get an apartment fir $475...

Or shut the heck up...

You don't know DC... I do...

Bobert

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

Peace,

I'm curious about welfare assistance programs in Canada. Do the programs and payments vary by province or or township, or are they uniform throughout the nation? Is there a program similar to the Food Stamp program in the USA that provides for routine, non-emergency assistance to purchase food? Is your national healthcare system uniform, such that medical benefits are the same for your entire citizenry? Is the funding entirely from federal dollars, or do provinces also kick in money from more local taxes?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:33 AM

Do the programs and payments vary by province or or township, or are they uniform throughout the nation?
* They vary by Province, but there is a Federal program that adds a few bucks depending on how many children people have.


Is there a program similar to the Food Stamp program in the USA that provides for routine, non-emergency assistance to purchase food?
* People can get emergency assistance by going to a Social Assistance office. But mileage may vary.

Is your national healthcare system uniform, such that medical benefits are the same for your entire citizenry?
* The medicare program: we pay about $90/month for a family and about $60/month single. The services are uniform across Canada. However, people if they wish can 'upgrade' from a room that is shared to a single room (space permitting) but they have to pay the difference in cost. That is where work medical programs come in. Families on welfare are deemed to have paid their Medicare benefits.

Is the funding entirely from federal dollars, or do provinces also kick in money from more local taxes?
* (From Wiki which explains it fairly well) Canada's healthcare system provides diagnostic, treatment and preventive services to every Canadian regardless of income level or station in life.

Each province in Canada manages its own healthcare system. For example, each province issues its own healthcare identification cards and negotiates with the federal government for money to cover healthcare costs. Each province also provides its own prescription drug benefit plan, available to every Canadian regardless of income level. The prescription drug benefit is, however, adjusted for income, with a higher co-payment required for those with higher personal incomes. The prescription drug benefit is very comprehensive and rarely excludes a medication. Where a medication is excluded that is needed by a patient, the patient applies for coverage under the plan for that drug using a Section 8 form.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM

Back to common ground. I also want to be careful that I don't allow myself to be co-oped by Mr. Exxon. I need to be very clear about the following.
1. My bottom line regarding policy or political concessions I am willing to make with respect to negotiating a limited coalition agreement around that common ground. This requires me to do a 'big picture' cost-benefit analysis BEFORE I even enter into negotiations.
2. I need to do a good inventory of my resources, and I need to have a pretty good idea of the resources available to Mr. Exxon. I want to know that I have enough leverage to avoid being co-oped if I do enter into negotiations, I want to know if I have enough power to not get pushed off of the common ground, but I also want to be sure I have an exit strategy that allows me to retreat with my assets intact from common ground if that is necessary.
3. I want to know my BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). I want to have a good idea of the strength of my BATNA. I want some idea of Mr. Exxon's BATNA and the strength of his position.

I need to do all of this because there are definite limits to the area of common ground. I want the point of contact and the goals of negotiation to focus on what we have in common, not on our differences. I want my anger to be out on the perimeters of the common ground, patroling, on guard duty. I can always call it in if needed, but I don't want to lead with it.

I want the biggest stick I can find. then I want to walk softly with it.

It goes without saying that I don't even step onto the common ground unless I am pretty sure my stick is big enough to back me up. But I don't want my anger to be so out front that neither Mr. Exxon or myself will risk sniffing around the edges. I don't want my anger to obscure from my vision the awareness that there may be common ground out there on the playing field.

Janie

-