Here Today... Gone To Hell!

By Bernd Debusmann Wed Oct 5, 3:37 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four decades after a U.S. president declared war on poverty, more than 37 million people in the world's richest country are officially classified as poor and their number has been on the rise for years.


Last year, according to government statistics, 1.1 million Americans fell below the poverty line. That equals the entire population of a major city like Dallas or Prague.

Since 2000, the ranks of the poor have increased year by year by almost 5.5 million in total. Even optimists see little prospect that the number will shrink soon despite a renewed debate on poverty prompted by searing television images which laid bare a fact of American life rarely exposed to global view.

The president who made the war declaration was Lyndon Johnson. "Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope, some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. This administration declares unconditional war on poverty in America."

That was in 1964. Then 19 percent of the U.S. population lived below the official poverty line. That rate declined over the next four years and in 1968, it stood at 12.8 percent.

Since then, it has fluctuated little. Last year, it was at 12.7 percent, proof that poverty is a chronic problem.

The state of poverty in the United States is measured once a year by the
Census Bureau, whose statistics-packed 70-plus page report usually provides fodder for academic studies but rarely sparks wide public debate, touches emotional buttons, or features on television. Not so in 2005.

The report coincided with Katrina, a devastating hurricane which killed more than 1,100 in Louisiana and Mississippi. Live television coverage with shocking images of the desperate and the dead in New Orleans showed in brutal close-up what the spreadsheets of the census bureau cannot convey.

U.S. POVERTY WORST IN INDUSTRIALISED WORLD

"Every August, we Americans tell ourselves a lie," said David Brady, a Duke University professor who studies poverty.

"The poverty rate was designed to undercount because the government wanted to show progress in the war on poverty.

"Taking everything into account, the real rate is around 18 percent, or 48 million people. Poverty in the United States is more widespread, by far, than in any other industrialized country."

Poverty is a universal problem, as is inequality. The world's 500 richest people, according to U.N. statistics, have as much income as the world's poorest 416 million.

The post-hurricane poverty scenes were so remarkable for most of the world because of the perception of the United States as the rich land of unlimited opportunity.

No other country spends so much money -- billions of dollars -- to keep job-hungry foreigners out; no other country has an annual lottery in which millions of people play for 50,000 permanent resident "green cards," no other country has as many legal and illegal immigrants, all drawn by dreams of prosperity.

For many Americans they remain just that: dreams. While there are arguments over how poverty is measured -- conservatives say the census overstates it because it does not take into account food stamps and other subsidies -- there is consensus on one thing.

The minimum wage, which stands at $5.15 an hour, is not enough to keep you above the poverty line. Yet minimum wage jobs, without health insurance or vacations, are the only jobs available to millions of people with only basic education.

The well-paid unskilled jobs in heavy industry which once lifted working-class Americans into the middle class are largely gone and the decline continues. Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Low-paid clerical work is being outsourced to developing countries.

George W. Bush is the worst thing to have happened to America.

Reading that article, it was this that caught me eye more than anything else. What a disgraceful figure. Something really does need to be done about poverty; on a global level.

this is not even a bush thing at all, this is a coutry wide time wide problem..... cant jsut throw this one on bush, granted hes not doing alot to fix it.... but hes not the reason its @ 12.7% was there for years

This is true. Yet the outsourcing is a new thing. As that article states, many unskilled people had job that did pay well enough to put them in the middle class. Those jobs are hard, long and often times dangerous. IMO those people willing to put in 13 hour days doing that kind of work deserve the pay. With those jobs being shipped overseas these people have nothing to turn to except working two minumum wage jobs to support their family.

I remember coming home late from work one night. I stopped to get gas and started talking to the clerk at the 7-11. The guy lost his good job (which was outsourced, some type of factory work I can't remember) and now worked the 7-11 eight hours, would go home and sleep 3-4 hours then get up and do construction during the day.....That is no way to live.

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

How come every time the Govt. declares war on something (drugs, poverty, terror) it seems to flourish as opposed to go away?  Maybe they should declare war on being rich so then the reverse would happen for us all!!

The Soviet Union did that. It didn't quite work out that way.

Stop the people hiring them.....

That would work too. But that would only change the bitching to: 'that the wealth gap between Mexico and US is growing'

how about a 30ft high wall with mines laid from end to end called the bush barrier...mission accomplished!

Why call it the "Bush barrier"? He's one of the biggest proponents of illegal immigration.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2005/06/the_upper_crust.html

The companies are addicted to cheap labor and if you take that away from them in the States then they'll just leave. ?A Catch-22 of sorts. ?The Mexicans are beginning to feels this too, they are being underbid by the Chinese and El Salvadorians.

Can't make everybody happy.

Besides the article is pointing to outsourcing jobs overseas, not to Mexicans who want to come over here and bust their ass for us.

mission accomplished=mission failure=sarcasm gringo :P

Something like 80% of "poor" households have televisions. Most of the poor here in America are relatively poor compared to the rest, but not destitute. That article just wants Socialism, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the lazy (with all due respect to the ~20% who don't have TVs!).

Show facts or stop you trollin'.

This article states what I already believe.  Bush isn't a conservative, not with the way he spends money that isn't his.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200510050812.asp

Grand Wizard Bush
?Bull Connor? Katrina crap.


As levees crumbled in New Orleans after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, so, too, tumbled any sense of decorum among key black Democrats. Officials and activists alike are re-submerging the Crescent City in a fact-free torrent of vitriol.

     
?George Bush is our Bull Connor,? Rep. Charles Rangel of New York told cheering Congressional Black Caucus conventioneers on September 22. ?If you?re black in this country, and you?re poor in this country, it?s not an inconvenience. It?s a death sentence.?

Rangel equated Republican President Bush to Theophilus ?Bull? Connor, Birmingham, Alabama?s former segregationist police commissioner who notoriously used attacks dogs and fire hoses to disrupt civil rights marches by Martin Luther King Jr. and other protesters in 1963. As is Rangel, Bull Connor was a Democrat.

Other black race baiters riffed on this theme. The Rev. Al Sharpton said, ?if there is a person that is a symbol that many blacks organize around and organize against in this generation, it would be Bush.? He added: ?We?ve gone from fire hoses to levees.?

?This is worse than Bull Connor,? said Rep. Major Owens (D., N.Y.). ?Bull Connor didn?t even pretend that he cared about African Americans,? Owens continued. ?You have to give it to George Bush for being even more diabolical.? Owens believes that Bush?s faith-based initiatives ?made it appear that he cared about black Americans. Katrina has exposed that as a big lie.?

Gotham City Councilman Charles Barron (D., Brooklyn), a former Black Panther, said ?George Bush is worse? than Connor ?because he has more power and he?s more destructive to our people than Bull Connor will ever be?A KKK without power is not as bad as a George Bush with power.? Barron added: ?What he did in New Orleans ? I mean, that?s worse than what Bull Connor did in his entire career as a racist in the South?Look at these neighborhoods before Katrina hit. Bush made that community what it is. Katrina did the rest, in partnership with Bush, to deliver the final blow.?

As Barron suggested, I asked Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Kirk Johnson to look at these neighborhoods. While Bush has taken responsibility for Washington?s disjointed first response to Katrina ? notwithstanding the 33,544 hurricane survivors who U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and boat crews started saving as soon as winds dropped below 45 MPH ? he need not apologize for neglecting the Big Easy?s poor before these hurricanes.

Using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report?s latest data, Johnson found that, ?Across all federal programs, Orleans Parish received $12,645 per capita in fiscal year 2003. At the same time, the national average was $7,089 per capita. Put another way, New Orleans received 78.4 percent more funding per person than the national average.?

Johnson also examined 21 low-income-assistance programs. Among them, inflation-adjusted federal poverty spending in Orleans Parish equaled $5,899 per-poor-person in Bill Clinton?s final, full-fiscal-year 2000 budget. By fiscal 2003, such outlays soared to $10,222. Under Bush, federal anti-poverty spending per-poor-New Orleanian ballooned 73.3 percent, or an average, annual hike of 24.4 percent over three years!

Johnson discovered, for instance, that spending on Immunization Grants dropped 80.51 percent, and Supportive Housing for the Elderly fell 25.6 percent during Bush?s first three years. However, Child Support Enforcement grew 8.3 percent. Head Start rose 13.8 percent. Food Stamps increased 43.1 percent. Pell Grants advanced 126 percent. Community Health Center funding accelerated 163.6 percent, and so on.

In 1999, under Clinton, Orleans Parish had 135,429 poor people and a 27.9 percent poverty rate. In 2004, under Bush, 102,636 New Orleanians were poor, while the poverty rate eased to 23.2 percent. So, pre-Katrina, the Big Easy?s poverty rate slid 16.8 percent during Bush?s tenure. What was that about the KKK?

?If program spending is the way to judge whether or not Washington cares about New Orleans,? Johnson says, ?then a lot of love has come to New Orleans in recent years.?

Most free-marketeers criticize these programs and instead advocate entrepreneurship, private-sector job creation, and private property ownership. That said, Bush?s and the GOP Congress? lavish spending on New Orleans? mainly black poor belies Rangel & Co.?s neo-segregationist paranoia.

?People from my Harlem chapter had many encounters with Bull Connor,? recalls Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Innis was a Freedom Rider who risked his life to register black voters in the early 1960s. ?It perverts the verity of language and the verity of decency to equate the hideous behavior of Bull Connor with President Bush ? a man who has appointed Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and so many other blacks to high office.?

The sad truth is that many of those pulled from rooftops and deposited at the Superdome and Convention Center were poor long before George W. Bush ran for president. They were poor throughout Bill Clinton?s eight years of Truth and Beauty, for which these crackpots probably pine. And they likely would be poor in 2012 had Katrina sputtered, and Hillary Clinton followed John Kerry into the Oval Office.

Largely under black, Democratic leadership, the Crescent City?s poor endured derelict schools (of which Baton Rouge has declared 70 among 127 ?academically unacceptable?), fatherless homes, municipal corruption, and, at least until lately, a business-hostile economic climate. These and other factors hobbled low-income New Orleanians. In my 13 visits to one of America?s most seductive locales, I found that part of New Orleans? enduring allure was its mysterious blend of fragile gentility, an atmosphere of elegant decay, and a sense of potentially imminent misfortune. The music-filled streets with ancient houses that tilted almost subliminally to one side masked far deeper troubles. Addressing them took hard work then, and will take even harder work now. Rather than pitch in, Rangel, Sharpton, Owen, Barron, and other friction-mongers plunge steak knives into old racial wounds and exhume the memory of a long-dead bigot to inflame Americans who hardly need their generosity diluted with venom.

While every American should row forward on behalf of Katrina?s and Rita?s victims, we now must paddle in circles while these race hustlers spill untreated sewage by the barrel. Who does this hurt? The same black New Orleanians whose plight they exploit.

I worry that some have heard these comparisons of Bush to Bull Connor, watched those German Shepherds snarl in black-and-white, shaken their heads in disgust, closed their checkbooks, and moved on. Rather than encourage compassion for those who still desperately need it, Rangel & Co. promote a meat-cleaver-like divisiveness that surely is slowing, not speeding, aid to the Katrina and Rita Zones.

For their counterproductive, hyper-partisan grandstanding, these so-called ?black leaders? deserve merciless excoriation from coast to coast.

if someone with a foreign accent tries to sell me something , i politely tell them to piss off

especially when they start entrusting personal information to these foreign companies, especially India

whatever happened to the data protection act

I think it is tough to criticize the US when no country is taking the number of poor people in that we are by leaving the US border open.

Somehow I think if someone from America made this quote they would be considered a racist.

You're right that I should have showed fact, since I was very much off the mark. The real percentage is 97%.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132956,00.html

Leave it to fox to clear this up!

haha...crack me up!!!  :hihi:

Somebody please ban this guy...

What's the matter? All of the sudden you don't like facts?

here's some more facts from that article that everyone should know to put things into perspective

It's from Fox news!!!!

They lie through their teeth!

 :hihi: :hihi:

Besides...what facts? Some jack off article from Fox showing people own tv means that we don't have a poverty problem in this country. My comment had nothing to do with that. You guys wanna use Fox to argue if people have tv's...that's great!

My comment was to this (obvious to anybody intelligent):

" That article just wants Socialism, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the lazy (with all due respect to the ~20% who don't have TVs!)"

You guys are pathetic.

You get an article about the poor in this country, and your debate is "Fox news shows poor people on DVDs"

Brilliant!!
 :hihi:

Hmmm....Reuters or FOX....Hmmmm...who do I read??

 :hihi:

Just a quick question from an ignorant Aussie  :D  ... is it correct that during Clinton's time in office, poverty in the US was significantly reduced?

It has been in steady decline for 40 years, according to the article. I think one of the main problems is outsourcing.


Two other brilliant posters here seem to think that the problem is that poor people own TV's....

SLC, your heart is in the right place, but you are ignorant on a few things.

What the "brilliant posters" were trying to get at is that poverty is not the same the world over.? Its hard to compare a poor person in the US to a poor person in Africa.

In Africa, there is not enough opportunity for people to use their talents and move up in society.

In the US, while there isn't as much opportunity for the unskilled as there used to be due to outsourcing and illegal immigration, the opportunities are still far superior to those that you will see in the third world.? The problems of the poor have much more to do with individual problems than societal problems.? And even the poor in the US have a lifestyle that would be considered middle class to rich in 3rd world nations.

In the US you have former Vietnamese boat people kicking the academic pants off of white kids who are supposed to have the system in their favor.? The opportunities are still there if you have the work ethic and personal common sense.

I do agree with you that we could make opportunities even more plentiful for our poor if we controlled outsourcing more, and cut down on illegal immigration.

I believe the subtitle was:

U.S. POVERTY WORST IN INDUSTRIALISED WORLD

This is the quote I was referring to:

" That article just wants Socialism, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the lazy (with all due respect to the ~20% who don't have TVs!)"

Many people here get tired of Walks troll posts filled with non-sense, then followed up by somebody like pop who is all up in arms because I did not bother to discuss the tv/dvd/ratio vs poor people and an article by Fox.

To post an article in hopes of having an intelligent discussion, or maybe even a solution, only to be dumbed down with blaming the poor and turning the topic into something it is not (Article = socialism) gets old after a while.

Yea, my heart is in the right place. How can we address the poverty in this country? Why not discuss that?

Instead the subject is quickly diverted to comparing apples to oranges as an excuse to call somebody lazy (in this case poor Americans). Simple as that.

Ignorant? Hardly.

Tired of assholes on this board...you bet. And I speak for most people here.

"The federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

SLC, very few Americans are truly poor. It's also accepted that the middle class pays the lion's share of the tax burden. There's a relatively low limit on the social security tax. The tax on investments isn't too high, either. Socialism means taxing one group to give benefits to another that doesn't earn them.

However, the main issue is that all Americans, regardless of social class, pay too much in taxes. Taxing the American people to fund inefficient anti-poverty programs isn't working. The government even pays farmers to not grow food, since otherwise it would flood the market! This is a bad idea, but the point is that no one is starving here.

I'm not "up in arms" about anything. I don't care what you discuss. I posted these because they provide context and put things in perspective. You tell a person from somewhere else in the world how much these "poor" Americans have and they'll laugh at you and your definition of poor.

That is the point. The article was not comparing our poor to the rest of the world.

They were talking about the poverty in America and how do we deal with it.

**********

SLCPUNK : The sky is blue

POPTARD: Of course there are clouds in the sky.

SLPUNK: No, actually I was talking about the color of the sky, not clouds.

POPTARD: You can't talk about the sky without talking about the clouds, please don't deny there are clouds in the sky.

SLCPUNK: I'm not denying there are clouds in the sky, but that is not my point.

POPTARD: See you can't face facts......clouds are in the sky, it was reported on FOX.

SLCPUNK: Why do you change the subject?

POPTARD: Why can't you answer my question?

SLCPUNK: What is your question?

POPTARD: How would you fly a kite on a windy day? Care to answer that? Or are you going to keep avoiding me?

SLCPUNK: What the hell does that have to do with the sky being blue?

POPTARD: Just answer the question. Typical liberal, always making claims, but can't back it up. How would you fly that kite on a windy day?

 :hihi:   ::)

Well since there are international people on the board it is only right to let them know what we are talking about when we say poor.  Furthermore, if our poor actually have many things and aren't what most would consider "poor" then it sure undercuts the justification to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Yeah, lets just cut off all aid to the poor because they have TVs and maybe a car.  I don't think we are talking big screen plasma tvs here.  There is a societal pressure for people to accumulate nice things.  Poor people want nice things too and get them at the costs of healthy food , for example.  I teach at a very poor school and I see kids wearing the same clothes for 2-3 days ina row but they have a PS2 and all that shit.  I can't explain it but taking away aid is not the answer, it would only hurt the kids in the long run.

So, giving people aid who are abusing it is the answer?

I am all for aid that helps people who make the right choices.  For example, Pell grants given to poor students who have a shown academic excellence is a good thing.  There should be more money put into that.  Generally, I am all for aid that motivates and encourages intelligent behavior.

However, aid that goes to the poor with no sense of who that individual is, is pure folly.  Does anybody really expect that society should subsidize a poor person's "right" to have a PS2?

Not me. Kids in so many parts of the world don't get adequate food, medicine and education, but people actually feel sorry for an American kid that blew $200 on a PlayStation (and probably a lot more for games) instead of extra clothes or healthy food. Unbelievable!

its just exaggerated banter...do you really think i answer sales calls with a piss off statement?...they just get on my nerves, i have work to do

So SLC when you quote an editorial from the new york times or some other liberal rag, that's an acceptable news source.  But when someone posts a news article from Fox News (which is credible no matter how much you deny it) you denounce it because you don't like what it has to say.  The reality is that certain politicians and interest groups are distorting the reality of what defines poor in America.


Then you really shouldn't be posting it here.  You can't explain that maybe the reason these people are poor in the first place is because they can't manage their money.  Rather than buy enough clothes and save up to get off the government dime, they spend and buy with my tax money nice toys for their kids then send them to school to get a free lunch.  Then you come here advocating that we should throw more money their way; what next poor kids with mustangs coming to school but dirty clothes. :confused:

Popmetal and Walk provide you with reality and you all go nuts because it destorys the liberal fantasy world you all live in.  Some of you really amaze me.  If people have AC, dvd players, multiple cars and own their house, then maybe they're not that poor.  This is America, we don't protect people from being fuckin' retarded.  If I advocated that we ban all poor people from having kids (which I'm not) to cut down on poverty you'd all label me racist/fascist/SLC and Co's choice word of the day. yet that would be the same amount of government power that you all advocate for but would actually solve the problem.

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you can dismiss them.  Un-fuckin-real ::)

I know you two don't like each other, but is it necessary to keep it at that level?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that politics should be kept out of the board so we could have a 100% fun off topic section with things like the "post a word thread". It certainly would make moderating a lot easier since we wouldn't have to "babysit" adults.



/jarmo

I'm more convinced of having a baby board as part of the Jungle. Invariably, some Jungle topics will veer toward political opinion, but it's worth a shot.


Just create a thread like this called "one word post count boost".


 

You know what I notice in my neck of the woods.  How come sometimes when I go to the supermarket there is someone in front of me who is on food stamps and she weighs 250 lbs and her kids look like they haven't eaten in weeks?  Then she proceeds to swear at her starving kids, buy cigarettes and beer with cash and then buy potato chips and cookies with food stamps.  This is not a sterotype.  This is what I actually often see when I go to the grocery store.  I'm sure most Americans see this from time to time.  I'm not sure how you can be poor and 250 pounds.  Those things always seemed to be in conflict with one another.

Also, about some that fall into the "poor" category.  I don't want a dime of my tax money going to support a women who has a kid that she can't afford to have in the first place.  If you are poor and can't afford a child, then don't have them.  It's pretty easy to not get pregnant and cost me money.  This is one of my biggest pet-peeves.  I don't think we should financially support people who could avoid this in the first place.  I know liberals will disagree , but giving my money to someone like this is absurd.

slc, someone finally gave you some 'facts' that so often ask for and you didn't like it.  Your rant was the funniest thing I've seen in a while.  Fox News isn't good enough for you but the NY Times is.  LOL   :hihi: 

I know this 400 lb woman who gets welfare because she's "disabled".  :o She got that way from watching TV all day and eating unhealthy food. She's just a heart attack waiting to happen.

So lets stop the aid to ALL because some abuse it?  Is that what is being said here?  The poor are often obese because of the types of food they buy (cheap) versus healthy fruits and veggies (expensive).  Another myth that has been brought up is the welfare mom.  They don't actually get all that much more money per child.  Maybe a few hundred dollars more.  Also, most are white which is quite opposite of the stereotype. 

Guns n Blanks, yes, it's quite obvious that the govt can not stop people like you from being retarded.  If there were IQ requirements for breeding then your parents would have been on the outside looking in!

Well this is the argument really from their side.

Take away the human element of being poor. By attacking the person/group who is poor, and blame the victims of poverty for the wrong doings of a minority in that class.

So why is it so important to feed the poor around the world, yet beat up on our poor? That is all I ever hear from the right is how we (which is false) give more help than any other country in the world. But then when it is time to help our poor, our needy, our sick, in the streets...it's fuck you time.

What's up with the doublespeak?

I posted that for what it was: an opinion piece.

They posted the Fox article as a fact. Two different things. Plus, OBVIOUSLY you did not read my response to it. As usual ignore the point, and change the subject.

I will not repeat myself with you guy, reread my post. Have somebody help you with it if you are not able to understand what I wrote.

As for Fox being a credible news source that is a joke. Media matters (among others) finds half truths, opinions and blatant lies on a daily basis with Fox. Murdock has had his ass sued off in Europe for his Fox affiliate reporting false stories over there. Our laws are much more lax, so he can get away with the shit he does here. But in Europe he toned it waaaaay down after losing in court.

Fox uses Talking Heads as 83 percent of their broadcasts. The rest is actual reporting. This is not something I would consider journalism, nor does anybody who holds journalism to a high standard.

Who gives more aid to the poor in this world than the US?  I'd like to see the numbers.  You may be right, but I'd still like to see the numbers.  And don't show me some percentages of population numbers or contribution by GNP....the bottom line number that matters is totally contributed by a country.  Who gives more than the US? 


Seems to me that the liberals want to spend my money to help the often times stupid and lazy.  I disagree with doing that.  I don't mind spending my money to help the poor on a temporary basis to help them get their footing if they fall on hard times, but I don't think government should fund the stupid or the perpetually lazy (and there are too many welfare recipients who fall into this category).  If you cannot afford a kid and you have one anyway, then it should be your tough luck and you should deal with your stupidity on your own.  Get a third job, find a husband, or otherwise deal with it on your own.

And saying that poor people are fat because they eat bad foods because that's all they can afford is ridiculous.  An apple or a banana cost next to nothing.  Chips Ahoy and Oreos are over $3 a bag.

You want to make personal attacks, fine nothing I and others aren't used to around here.  Reality is that your post makes no economic or logical sense.  It's purely reactionary and emotional.  You think we should give more money to "poor" people because they buy PS2s rather than nice clothes.  If that makes any rational sense to you at all, maybe you should take an IQ test before you pop out some leaches into the world.

I hate big government, but when you're on my tax money, than your right to privacy is nullified.  These "poor" people should have a credit card by which all their govt money is on and they should be barred from purchasing any name brand or un necessary foods - meaning pop, candy, beer cigarettes etc.  Some states try to get a good program for welfare types, like Michigan.  BUt the Michael Moore just makes a movie and distorts reality so all of you can come here and praise that fat fuck for his genius.  Now enlighten me with some more intelligent responses.

No SLC, I didn't confuse what you said, you just don't like being called a hypocrite (which seems to be your new choice word - I miss biggot).  O'Reilly himself has said a million times that he is a commentator; just like Moore and Franklen.  If you can't divide the two concepts, that's on you.  This material however is cited and valid.  Just because it breaks down your little fantasy world doesn't mean you can discard it as garbage.

Certainly I don't think you are.  I am just saying there are others that have been called a racist for less.

Moore doesn't hide by cutting mics off and ending segments. He posts his sources on his website for everybody to see.

Again, the material cited, was not what I asked for. You either refuse to admit this, or do not read the posts, because I have explained in detail that I was not asking him to back up the "poor people have tvs" comment.

Why do I keep repeating myself?

And why do you keep telling me that I deny the "facts" that I didn't ask for (and am not talking about)?

This is your only way to argue? Change the subject, ignore what I said and press on? You always talk about your political degree. Did they teach you to lie in school and change the subject so you could attack people? Or is this just some "PP" trait you have on your own?

What you are doing is what O'reilly does. You guys are little Fox robots, all wound up and ready to go. :hihi:

Look it up yourself. The only thing that will happen if I look it up and post it: is you ignoring it and asking me to post it again.....

Coporate welfare takes more out of your pocket then any poor person ever would. But you already know that right?

Of course there are always going to be welfare abusers, as Charity Case described. ?But, you can't just assume that someone is poor because they are stupid or lazy. ?In some areas of our country, jobs are very scarce. ?And what is available are minimum wage jobs or jobs for $8.00/hr. You can't possible support a family on $8.00/hr. ?That's something like a little over $1,000.00 a month, take-home pay. ?Rent itself would be close to half that. ?Then there's food to put on the table and clothing. ?In this day & age you have to have at least 1 car, and even if it's paid for and you have minimal insurance on it, there's still gas & repairs. ?There's utilities to pay, and the costs to heat a home are rising. ?Plus, if you don't have a good insurance plan with this job, then you have additional medical bills and prescriptions to pay for out-of-pocket. ?And many employers have the employees paying part of the insurance premium. This may be a single-parent household, with no other adult to depend on for financial support. ?And even if it is a 2-parent household and both work, there's now the cost of child care included. ? People live like this everyday. ?I see the cost of living rising, with no proportion to wages. ? ?

I live in a very small community, where the local factory that employed many people in town for decades at fairly good wages, closed and moved it's operation south of the border (cheaper wages). ?This was a couple yrs ago, and some people are still out of work. ?They have applied for many jobs and even gone back to school for some type of training. ?But jobs are very scarce. ?There's more people looking for jobs than what are available. ?So, you end up taking that $8.00/hr job because at least it's some income. ? ? ?

There are probably people in this country who are even worse off than this, who are homeless & live in shelters. ?Again, you can't assume it's because they are stupid or lazy. ?I have a feeling that most of us here don't even know what true poverty is because we haven't lived it. ?And it's unfair to make judgements about people when we haven't walked in their shoes. ? ? ?

It is unfair to judge and people also forget that we have an entire nation of people who are poor that do work, more than 40 hours a week. And have nothing.

This may be the funniest post of the week.  :hihi:

Walk (the bigot, racist) and Popmetal (proven wrong with articles he ignores, See: civil war) providing us with reality.....uh..ok!  :rofl:

You always ask for people to post facts.  You ask over and over again in this forum like a broken record.  But when some here asks you to give facts, you have this answer.  You must be wrong if you don't want to look it up.  I may be wrong myself, but I highly doubt any other country gives more aid to the poor in this world than the US. 

I'm shocked that an American could wear his hatred of the US on his sleeve like you.  If you had any nuts at all, any balls whatsoever, you'd leave and go live in France or one of these other countries that you defend when you won't defend a single thing about the US.  Why is it you don't live by the principals you spout here?  Only two reasons exist.  One, you are a coward or two, you don't believe half the shit you say.  I'm willing to be its a bit of both.

And no one said they assumed all poor people were stupid or lazy.  Read the post.  I said that I was for helping poor prople on a temporary basis to get out of the hole.  If they don't dig themselves out or have kids when they can't afford it or don't even try to find a job then they are either stupid or lazy and should not be support. 

Does the aid you liberals want to give out every end?  Is there ever a point where you say someone is a lost cause?  Do you have a line, either economically or socially, they you won't cross to give aid?  Helping others is great and it is a fundamental part of the US, but there needs to be limits.  I draw the line with the stupid and lazy personally.

This reminds me of another thread when you asked me over and over to post what I had said.

Once again, I have posted the stats on this forum, and it is still on the internet.

And once again you are free to search. (But FYI Official Development Assistance based on GNP showed USA in 22cd for 2004 hardly what was agreed to when joining.)

I present facts, you ignore them, then ask again.

I don't have hatred for Americans. I just don't like false claims made by people about America, such as yourself. If I don't like W's war, deficit and lies then I should go live in France? Wow, an American statement if I ever heard one.... :hihi:

What principles do I not live buy that I "spout here"? Please explain

Oh so you showed a list of countries' contributions based on GNP.  I asked you for a true list, not a list skewed to show how bad the US.  Funny how there are two options here.  One options shows that the US contributes more dollars than any other country in the world (probably by a ton).  The second option is to show a list of contributions by GNP which, according to you, shows us at #22.  And which option does slc choose to show?  Of course he chooses the option that shows the US in the poorest light possible.  You are about as anti-American as possible man.  I said it before, grow a pair go live overseas if the US sucks so bad.  I've yet to see you say one positive thing about the US on this board.  I could understand if you were talking about someplace else, but the US is by far the greatest place on this planet tolive.  Yesterday, now and tomorrow.  You wouldn't know it to listen to you though.

The fact is that we contribute more dollars to human suffering causing than any other country in the world.  Fact is we contribute more than dollars.  We captured Milosevic and ended genocide single handedly (basically) without lose of American lives.  We stopped Hussein from taking Kuwait.  These are contributions to the poorer countries that you don't find in lists by GNP.  All other things aside, we contribute the most per country.

That's an insult to France! This guy is so off the chart left-wing and anti-American that he should move to North Korea.

North Korea or Iran. Both would love his ideology.

I am not sure about Iran.  They don't treat muslims and terrorists as well as SLC wants them to be treated. :hihi:





Disclaimer: I am only kidding SLC.  I actually think many of your criticisms are supported pretty well. 

I know alot of poor people, its part of my job.  Of course some are lazy, but some truly don't know how to change their lives.  I hire people at 7.00 an hour to do a difficult job, that educated people probably wouldn't do no matter how much it pays.  My staff live in the ghetto.  Those that drive, don't leave the local area.  Others take the bus and they also stay local.  They live an incredibly isolated life, if there are opportunities for them, they don't know what they are.  They feel defeated anyway, with no hope for a different life.  I've heard before that the number one common factor among teenage mothers is that they have no hope for a future.   They don't expect to go to college, so why not just get knocked up and live on welfare?  Its all they know, and the circle continues through generations.  So how do we help these people?  A sociologist would say we don't, because we need the poor to operate as a society.   

I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe its a culture thing.  Not racial, but cultural.  I can see the difference among my staff.  All with the same education level, all at the same pay.  Some work their butts off trying to earn extra to put their kids through school.  Others just accept the way things are and do nothing; they just don't see any point to it.  They don't expect to ever get anywhere.  Its what they have been told their whole lives, don't bother...you are stuck in this life, at this level.  Want to know the difference between those who dream of a different life, and those who don't?  Those who think they can change things aren't american.  And to me that's sad. 

LOL, what's that?

Tell the truth, and don't murder people around the world?

The amount given (I've told you this before) is based on GNP. That is how it works, all wealthy nations are expected (and agreed) to give based on this amount.

Go read, learn something, please.....

That is ok, you know I have a pretty good sense of humor Nightrain.... ;D

Wow that's nice if you are poor in Walk's universe you're denied the right to procreate !

And to your information - in all industrialized countries - The poors tend to be fatter than the average person - If you eat junk food all the time that what's happen ... see ? It's the same here in France - in the north , a region where unemployement rate is high is where you find the more % of obese people...

And people who tend to compare oranges to apples I tend to agree w/ SLC. The poverty line is calculated more or less the same way in most industrialized countries - so don't compare africa poverty line to the one in the USA.
And the TV thing is hilarious - In brazil every home has a fuckin TV even in the favelas in Rio everybody has a TV set ... does that make them rich ? I guess not.

TV is still a luxury. It sucks power just like any other appliance. It's expensive to buy initially and it costs power in the long run. It also advertises consumer products for the weak minded to buy, and this keeps them poor. It takes time away from studying or working. It doesn't do anything useful. It's luxury. Processed junk food is also a luxury. If one can afford ANY luxury, no matter what it is, one is not poor. The poor are those who can't afford necessities. Food, shelter, and clothing are necessities.

The poor should definitely never have children. My definition of poor, of course, is those who cannot afford necessities. They can't clothe or feed their children. They shouldn't have children if they can't take care of them. It's cruel to have children one can't care for. I won't budge on this issue.

Now, the issue is more complex for those who can afford the basics for children. If they can't afford private school, children might not be worth it. Most public schools are terrible and produce mediocrity. If they can't afford to help their children's talent by buying them a musical instrument or some paint and paper, children might not be worth it. If both parents would have to work 12 hours a day to have children, it might not be worth it. This is a grey area.

Children are more expensive than most people think. It's best to wait until one has assets before having children. Imagine if both parents are killed in a car accident or one has a heart attack and has to stop working. Hopefully, they have some bonds and life insurance to take care of their children. Wealth helps prepare the children for unexpected events like this. The less wealthy depend on luck for their children, and this isn't appropriate in the 21st century. We should know better.

Ok I'm going to try once again.
In here we are not discussing on your definition of the word "poor" but on the "poverty line" in the United States.

Poverty line : "The poverty line is the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live. People who have an income below the poverty line have no discretionary disposable income, by definition.

Determining the poverty line is often done by considering the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year and then summing their cost. This approach is needs-based in that an assessment is made of the minimum expenditure needed to maintain a tolerable life. This was the original basis of the poverty line in the United States, which has since been uprated for price changes. In developing countries, the largest of these resources is typically the rent required to live in an apartment, so historically, economists have paid particular attention to the real estate market and housing prices as having a strong influence on the poverty line."


Hope that helps !

So what Walk is saying is that only wealthy people should have children?  Did I understand that right?  Only have children if you can afford to put them in a private school and buy them expensive musical instruments.



 

I can't speak for Walk, but from my point of view, if you can't afford to have a kid, if having a kid will cost taxpayers money to support it because you can't support iton your own, then you shouldn't have kids.  Period.  I don't want a cent of my tax money to go to support someone so stupid as to have a child that they can't afford to have in the first place.  I mean I don't make stupid decisions that cost other tax payers money.  Why should anyone else?  I'm sorry if that is hard for some bleeding hearts to hear, but it makes perfect sense to not enable the stupid.

In your perfect world I guess American birth rate would be low, very low ... You won't pay a lot of taxes but there won't be many of you left ! Who will fight your wars ? Who will clean your homes ?  ??? ;D

Ok, I understand being angry at people who pump out kids they can't afford.  I get it, really I do.  But what do you propose we do about it?  The kids are already here, its not their fault.  They need an education and food and shelter.  Someone has to pay for it.

As for the poor people who haven't had kids yet, what about them?  Forced sterlization or abortion?  In America?

there's always the mexicans.


Disclaimer: ?This is response to sterotypes that only the poor fight and die. ?I'm just adding another sterotype that the mexicans do all the hard labor in this country (which there is some basis too). ?No racism or bigotry is implied.

If you haven't caught the irony I can do nothing for you ! :P

And I guess Charity Case won't be pleased to pay for the Mexican children either !

I think I might understand where Charity Case is coming from on this one - maybe. ?I mean I have trouble having any real empathy for women who are very poor to begin with and have baby after baby, starting at a very young age and with different men, and then live off the system. ?That bothers me, but many of them might be raised in an environment where they don't know any other way of life. ?I'm not making an excuse for them, but people do get stuck in a way of life, that perpetuates itself from one generation to the next. ?That doesn't make them stupid. ?

However, what I'm hearing is that if you don't have money, and a lot of money, you shouldn't have children. ?I agree, you need to have some means of providing food and shelter. ?But private schools & music lessons aren't the basis of what raising kids is all about. ?You can be poor and have a lot of love for those kids and raise them well. ?

What about people who have some wealth, have children, and then lose everything for whatever reason? ?Should they be allowed to continue to raise their children because they couldn't provide the same standards as before? ?What about the millions of people in our country that live on that $8.00 I talked about before, who have no choice because that's what's available? ?Should they not be allowed to have children either? ? ?

We don't live in this perfect, little world here. ?This is reality - what real people live through every day. ?

Very good point. 

We educate the kids that are already here as best we can.  Nobody disagrees with that.

However, we need long term planning to prevent poor people from having more kids then they can support.  Its not about hating anyone.  We need to prevent the problems we have now.  Welfare needs to be further reformed, legislation needs to be put in place to create incentives for people to get married and stay together.  In general, we need to strenghthen the American family.  I think if we did that, a lot of our social problems wouldn't be nearly as bad.

In one breath I hear "Marriage is a sacred institution that shouldn't be modified". (IE: No gay marriage)

In the next "Legislations should change marriage to encourage more people to stay together". (IE: Harder divorce, etc)

I don't disagree that we need to strengthen the American Family.  But I DO disagree that the government should have a legislative hand in it.  That's both too drastic and too costly....not to mention scary as fuck.  Our government tends to have a hard time with the concept of restraint, historically.  And there are too many "extenuating circumstances" that can precipitate family break ups (abusive spouse, infidelity, addiction, etc). 

A "strong family" does not, by necessity, have to include 2 parents.  It certainly helps to have a strong male and female role model, to be sure.  But the operative word there is "strong" not male or female.  A "weak" or "negative" role model is, I think, actully WORSE than having no role model of that gender.

On the outsourcing issue...well, you can thank Clinton for the beginings of that, actually.  NAFTA, and some other trade treatise during his administration, really opened the door on that.  Bush sure has opened it wider, but....

I'll ignore the fact it IS a stereotype, whether you see it or not, and just answer the underlying question:

Why are more poor people obese?

Have you actually looked at WHAT constitutes the "least expensive" food in a grocery store?  Have you looked at the contents?

Cheap food, by and large, is not very healthy food.  It's filled with fat and carbs and, traditionally, is very high calorie. Vegetables, fruit,  "good" meat (fish, lean beef, chicken), and other more healthy foods are much more expensive. In other words, eating cheap is not going to keep you thin because, quite frankly, eating cheap means eating junk.  When you're stretching your food stamps/state assistance and cash to the max.....

In addition, I daresay a gym membership might be out of the range of their monthly budget range. Nor is a treadmill.  And taking a nightly stroll, when you live in the inner city, might not ACTUALLY be very good for your health, all things considered.

Does that answer the question?

Pil, the US government sure opened the doors to this mess we have now in regards to the family with all the welfare state legislation.  I am only for getting rid of the mess that government created in the first place.

Proof, please? ?That the poor are "often times stupid and lazy"?

And a banana or an apple is cheap? ?You really have no clue, huh?

Here, I'll help:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib747/aib74707.pdf

I don't disagree, it's just how we go about it that concerns me.? I only want the government's nose in "my business" as far as it needs to be.? And determining the hows and why's of my marriage and whether it's sustainalbe is a bit too close for comfort, for me.

I do agree that the current system needs work.? It's not efficient and far too easy to "cheat".? The problem lies in coming up with a better system that doesn't exclude those that need help, but "encourages" those that don't need help (According to the 1994 Green Book from Ways and Means, only about 5% of those on welfare are "cheaters) that it would be more lucrative to actually be productive.? The higher minimum wage might help, though there are always those that would prefer something for nothing over the alternative, and the higher minimum wage carries it's own inherent problems (further increases the incentive for outsourcing).

You did so say they were stupid and lazy:


Black and white, clear as day.

So Walk, do you own a car? ?You obviously have a computer, according to Bolivian standards you must be a very wealthy man. ?Millionaire? ?Multi-millionaire? ?

I am kind of middle of the road on this. ?Do I like seeing my 8 or 9 year old students being dirt poor but yet having a PS2? ?No, I do not condone this type of spending but you can't punish children for what their parents do. ?With out some aid and programs like WIC some of these kids would never make it to school. ?

SLC, I was pointing out some misleading stereotypes about poverty and Welfare. ?I got the sense from severalposts that the pervading image of the poor is an inner-city black woman with 4-5 kids. ?This would lead a racist to say cut off all the funds for these poor blacks. ?When in actuality, most of the poor are rural whites in trailor parks. ?Would the racist cut off his white brithers? ?Devil's advocate? Yes. ?Doublespeak? No.

Answer (though a bit dated):

How much aid does the United States give?
Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush?s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.

How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world?s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world?s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 16.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001?almost a third of what America contributed.

http://www.terrorismanswers.org/policy/foreignaid_print.html

And who's to say WHERE that PS2 came from.  That's why anecdotal info is so much crap.

You'd all be shocked...on the floor, flat out shocked...at what we see, every year, come through our Toys for Tots drive.  Last year, alone, we had about 25 to 30 PS2's contributed between the Women's auxillary's contribution and another local group's contribution.  I know the Women's auxillary dealth with Sony directly and got them below retail.

Again, I'm not saying that's the situation in each case.  But....again, anecdotal information isn't really very compelling.

Pilferk, you rant on anecdotal evidence but then you provide some as well.  How is the situation I presented any more or less anecdotal than yours?

It's not.? That's the point.? ;D

Both are anecdotal.

They both HAPPENED.

But yet, depending on which "verision" is presented, you get a vastly different picture painted for you.

Which bolsters the point that anecdotal info is pretty worthless.

So, snapping to judgement based on it (and I know you weren't the original poster who brought up the PS2 thing....you're just continuing the example), and what you percieve based on it, without further information, might not be the best thing to do.

I understand and agree with the misleading stereotypes about poverty. Many are presented here by the posters (half prejudice anyway) on the board.

I don't recall claiming anything you said was doublespeak, and if I did, it probably was not intended towards you (late night sleepy post, mistake, whatever.)

It's a dilemma for sure.  And that is why we have welfare I guess.  But if it were up to me I would make it not attractive at all to have kids if you can't afforf them.  That means NO support based on the number of children you have.

And can you imagine the improvements that we would see if we forced sterilization of certain groups?  If we sterilized drug addicts, the hopelessly impoverished and all liberals...wouldn't this country improve almost over night?   :rofl:

"Special Showers" for those who voted for Bush would be a quicker way to raise the intelligence level of this country.

Wow, echoes of Hitler here on the board. 

Whoa there....What kind of country do you want to live in?

If somebody disagrees with you then they should live in another country?

If somebody is poor or has a different opinion then you, then make sure they can't reproduce?

If somebody has a drug problem, make sure they can't reproduce either?

Wow!  :o

You sure have a fucked up vision of what America should be.

Why not include blacks and gays too? You're almost there.....

 
Yea...this is amazing to read isn't it?

You don't seem interested in discussing this anymore so I'll lock it.




/jarmo