# Poverty ranks swell by over a million



## PeachMonkey (Aug 27, 2004)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/index.html

 Four More Years!


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2004)

It's a shame I can't post this stuff in the 'Convince Me' thread.

Let's see:
Americans Living in Poverty up by 1.3 million
Americans Living uninsured up by 1.4 million
35.8 million Americans living in poverty
800,000 *more* *children* living in poverty (A good thing No Child is Left Behind)

Let's not forget the 'Booming Economy", which, for some reason, we need to keep revising the numbers *down*. Maybe the economy is not as good as some report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5838861/

Good thing that Grand Ayotollah Ali al-Sistani was able to get a peace deal worked out in Najaf, or else all the news might be bad for the President.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 27, 2004)

Most people who are economically "having not" are this way for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with environmental factors.  We must ask ourselves:  are our locii of control internal, or external -- and do we believe the government is our mommy?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 27, 2004)

Well, non-committal as the answer may be, I'd say there are two locii of control, both external and internal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 27, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Most people who are economically "having not" are this way for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with environmental factors.  We must ask ourselves:  are our locii of control internal, or external -- and do we believe the government is our mommy?



As soon as we attempt to define these _specific reasons_, we will find multitudes of baseless assumptions that these statistics don't address.  We know nothing about these people other then that they now fit the definition of poverty.

A foreboding post indeed.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 27, 2004)

> Most people who are economically "having not" are this way for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with environmental factors.


 If you attempting to suggest that those who are the "have nots" are that way because of genetics, I would have to vehemently disagree.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 27, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> If you attempting to suggest that those who are the "have nots" are that way because of genetics, I would have to vehemently disagree.


I toatally agree with this.  Must it not be either genetic or environmental?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 27, 2004)

Those are the options out there.  And not only is eugenics an abhorrent social concept, but it is scientifically flawed on a number of levels.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 27, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Most people who are economically "having not" are this way for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with environmental factors.


 Let me guess: this is the part of the conversation where we get into how people that are poor *deserve* to be poor, and that government's only obligations are to assist the able-bodied Ubermenschen to lead to take their rightful place at the head of the _hoi polloi_.

 Never mind all of the work humanity has done over thousands of years to refine and support the social contract.  That's just some silly revisionist Pinko crap, right?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 27, 2004)

> If you attempting to suggest that those who are the "have nots" are that way because of genetics, I would have to vehemently disagree.



Why on Earth would you assume the only two factors in all of life are the environment and one's genes?  We are more than the sum of our twisted pairs.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 27, 2004)

OK, what else are you suggesting?  When we look at how any organism arrives at a certain point, we (in the lab or field) study their genetics and their environments.  Is there something else there?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2004)

Oh, please ... don't encourage him.



Mike


----------



## Lisa (Aug 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, please ... don't encourage him.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike


Sorry Mike, but I have too.  I really am interested in hearing it.  If it isn't genetics and it isn't environment, then what else is there?  Maybe I am too linear in my thinking to see the other factors.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 27, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> OK, what else are you suggesting?  When we look at how any organism arrives at a certain point, we (in the lab or field) study their genetics and their environments.  Is there something else there?



That is very close to the position I argued sometime ago, but that it a different thread for a different day.  I, too, am curious to see this mysterious third.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 27, 2004)

upnorth, are you talking about our conversation?  That was interesting, I enjoyed it.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 27, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> and do we believe the government is our mommy?


No.  I believe this government is my enemy.


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 27, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No. I believe this government is my enemy.


Are not they all?

Its's worse in Europe folks - *How many people in the UK live in poverty? *

Just under 1 in 4 people in the UK  or 
*nearly 13 million people*  live in poverty, according to the latest figures. This includes nearly *1 in 3 *
children (almost 4 million).
1 Department for Work and Pensions, _Households Below _
_Average Income 1994/95 to 2000/01_, Corporate Document 
Services, 2002. 

Where is it better than the US? Nowhere. So what does US call Poverty>

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html


Money income[font='Times New Roman', serif] Includes earnings, unemployment compensation, [/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]workers compensation, Social Security, Supplemental [/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]Security Income, public assistance, veterans payments,[/font]

[font='Times New Roman', serif]survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, [/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates, trusts,[/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]educational assistance, alimony, child support, assistance[/font]
[font='Times New Roman', serif]from outside the household, and other miscellaneous [/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]sources. [/font]
[font='Times New Roman', serif]Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing[/font][font='Times New Roman', serif] subsidies) do not count.[/font]
[font='Times New Roman', serif]Before taxes. [/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]Excludes capital gains or losses. [/font][font='Times New Roman', serif]If a person lives with a family, add up the income[/font][font='Times New Roman', serif] of all family members. (Non-relatives, such as[/font][font='Times New Roman', serif] housemates, do not count.)[/font]

​[font='Times New Roman', serif]Most of us have lived in poverty at one point in our lives. The greatest thing about about America is you can get out (unlike 99% of the world - why do you think the Mexicans and south americans come here) and IF you can not we will take care of you! Have you ever voluntered in the Philipines, Chile, Bogata? Folks thats hard living.[/font]


[font='Times New Roman', serif]This number shrinks and grows every year. I am passionate about this argument because I have worked hard to feed folks and help with their daily lives. This is always ignored or dismissed (drug addicts, booze, etc - yes in many cases but not all) until an election rears its head. This is a fact of life. The majority of our donations come from private sources. Until you hit rock hard bottom - the government does little (try to collect Unemployment insurance when you lose your $40K a year job - it's like you are asking for a favor). No pretty words from the governement will do anything until you grab a bag of canned goods, go to the east side and pass them out.[/font]


[font='Times New Roman', serif]Sorry to rant - Glenn.[/font]
(Take a look at this site - it is worth it : http://www.charitynavigator.org/).


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 27, 2004)

I don't think the number can correlate to anything the administration has done, which is how Rueters spun this story as well.

Poverty numbers are up x%. How much has the population of people living in this country gone up in 4 years?

It also doesn't say how many people were above the poverty line and then slipped below it.

Maybe there were none.

In that case, the poor are giving birth to more poor children.

I wonder if they counted illegals too...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 27, 2004)

Ah, capitalism....gotta love it...the alibis, the excuses, the recitation of shibboleths that work as a charm 'gainst reality, and the possibility that you too!! may be sold out.

All those poor people? It's the bucket joke; there aren't any, it's their own fault, and anyway there are more in Europe.

Never have so many settled for so little; never have so many--no, not even in the so-called Dark Ages--worked so hard as apologists for their oppressors, and for the system producing their oppression. 

Must get a new Mekons CD...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Never have so many settled for so little; never have so many--no, not even in the so-called Dark Ages--worked so hard as apologists for their oppressors, and for the system producing their oppression...



Pass the Kool-aid on this one, man.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> upnorth, are you talking about our conversation?  That was interesting, I enjoyed it.



Yes, in fact, I was.  I've done a little more reading since then and I am about ready to dig up that thread...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 28, 2004)

Robertson:

Just out of curiosity, what the hell is the bucket joke?  I've just never heard that phrase before.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

Freud to neighbor:

"Can I have the bucket back that I loaned you?"

Neighbor:

"I never borrowed your bucket; I gave it back last week; and anyway, it  had a hole in it when you loaned it to me."


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 28, 2004)

Well getting back to the original topic... IMO most of these poverty strickened people are there because they want to be there. Many are living on welfare and what-ever non-earned income they have going for them. 
Many are not educated enough to get employment suitable enough to lift them above the poverty line or they do not have the necessary skills to obtain said employment that they need. 
As one who used to live at or below poverty levels on more than one occasion... I'm working full time right now and am basically calling myself living rather than surviving... I'm just one step above poverty and hope to stay there long enough to get to the next step. It's called a JOB... you know J-O-B? *J*ust *O*ver *B*roke?... anyway I've seen enough examples of these variables in the poverty section of our society to know who are sincere in wanting to get out and raise standards of living but are struggling and some mightily at that, and others who are just plain LAZY and don't want to. And yes there are those who are just incapable by some circumstances or another. 

Jesus said: "The poor will be with you always..." It is up to us to help out the best that we can. Even giving a person a job that pays decent enough for one or two nights a week (if that's all they or you can do) is a BIG help ... better than none at all. 
We cannot and should not say it's  just the government's problem just because we pay the taxes that are supposed to help these people... that _want_ to be helped. There are many little things that we can do to make their lives a little bit better. 
I try to do my part for new employees where I work, who are just starting again from scratch by understanding how broke they are after being unemployed for a while and now having to wait two weeks before their first check and loan them a few bucks... ($5.00 or even $10) just so they can get a dollar burger for lunch every day if that's what they need. It's damn hard,  and I've been there and so I try to help out because it helps pass on the message that yeah, there are folks who give a damn. 
Like many of us here on MT 
 :asian:


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

Yea, I've seen the poverty stricken of Dorchester or Boston. With their 150 dollar nike's.

I see no motivating factors for them to improve, especially if we're giving out hard cash instead of food stamps.

Real poverty is when you are starving. There is not 34 million starving in this country.

You'll know poverty when you are truely hungry.

I made 19k after college. 1k above the poverty line. I was still quite happy then because there is more to life than money.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Yea, I've seen the poverty stricken of Dorchester or Boston. With their 150 dollar nike's.
> 
> I see no motivating factors for them to improve, especially if we're giving out hard cash instead of food stamps.
> 
> ...



Mike, with all due respect, people with 150 dollar nikes are not in "poverty" and never were.  They weren't "given" money by the government to buy what they have, the families worked and scrimped and saved.  The reality of wellfare is far different then what the Right envisions.  

As far as the starving people in this country goes...  My school provides three meals a day for EVERY kid who walks through the door.  I have lived in places in this country were EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING was starving (Pine Ridge Reservation).  I, myself, as a child, starved.  If you count up all of the people in the city or in Rural USA who are going hungry, the number is going to be GREATER then 34 million.  

This is one of those things that you only see when you have lived it, otherwise you are taught to ignore it.  People always talk about how the government gives you everything when you are poor.  Well, I grew up about as poor as one can get and I didn't get much.  What I got, I recieved from scrapping metal and hunting and shoveling snow...ect.  That is not what I would call lazy...

Poverty exists in this country and some of it is far worse then anything you will find in the third world.  We should expect more from a _superpower_.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, with all due respect, people with 150 dollar nikes are not in "poverty" and never were.  They weren't "given" money by the government to buy what they have, the families worked and scrimped and saved.  The reality of wellfare is far different then what the Right envisions.



Well, according to the article, they are in poverty. They make less than $18k and are now in that group. I would tend to disagree on what they were given. Just a gut call here, but nearly HALF the people I have EVER met that received government assistance was either doing so fraudulently or WAS receiving enough for the 150 dollar nikes.

My definition of poverty is you have NOTHING with no promises of what will come tomorrow. No nikes, no X-boxes, no 2nd or third TV's. Nothing. And I do know we have legitimate poor folk here, but not 34 million of them. Also, comparing now to the 1920's, we've come a long way. Comparing 2000 to 2004 - I don't see the comparison.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as the starving people in this country goes...  My school provides three meals a day for EVERY kid who walks through the door.  I have lived in places in this country were EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING was starving (Pine Ridge Reservation).  I, myself, as a child, starved.  If you count up all of the people in the city or in Rural USA who are going hungry, the number is going to be GREATER then 34 million.



I'm still waiting for the news to start playing the stories on all the dead and dying who starve to death each day here. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but it just aint gettin' played. Well, not 34 million times. 1 time is enough to make most take a step back and be thankful for what they have. But we still live in the greatest country ever, IMO. Room to grow, of course. I'm just a little tired of the spin and fuzzy math.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

See what I mean?

1. These people aren't poor.

2. This country offers the millions of poor people all the opportunity anyone needs, 

3. And anyway, it's their own damn fault.

Among the things I adore about capitalism are these three things:

a) The way ideology works like the old country-western song, "Darlin' who you gonna believe? Me or your own lyin' eyes;"

b) The perpetuation of fake images of the poor, not only to cover up their human identity but to both reassure and threaten those who have, "made it;"

c) The promulgation of a total contradiction between surface religious principles (me, I recollect Jesus insisting on...well, you know) and deep thoughts (ah, screw 'em).

It's bad enough we don't do anything. At least let's not lie to ourselves, eh?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> See what I mean?
> 
> 1. These people aren't poor.
> 
> ...



No, I don't see what you mean. Can you point out where that's coming from, or if it's from a large enough base to matter?

I know, it's the Michael Savages of the world and Rush Limbaugh....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for the news to start playing the stories on all the dead and dying who starve to death each day here. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but it just aint gettin' played. Well, not 34 million times. 1 time is enough to make most take a step back and be thankful for what they have. But we still live in the greatest country ever, IMO. Room to grow, of course. I'm just a little tired of the spin and fuzzy math.



Mike, my father worked on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in SD.  I lived with him for a short time during my tumultuous young life.  In the middle of winter, we are talking about 40 mile an hour winds and minus 0 temps, children were living in cardboard boxes.  You won't see this on the news though...its not chic and it doesn't make Americans feel to good about their country.  

Seeing is believe, Mike, that is all I've got to say. :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

1. Yea, I've seen the poverty stricken of Dorchester or Boston. With their 150 dollar nike's.

2. But we still live in the greatest country ever, IMO. Room to grow, of course. 

3. IMO most of these poverty strickened people are there because they want to be there.

I'm sorry. Did I go and read what was written again?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, my father worked on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in SD.  I lived with him for a short time during my tumultuous young life.  In the middle of winter, we are talking about 40 mile an hour winds and minus 0 temps, children were living in cardboard boxes.  You won't see this on the news though...its not chic and it doesn't make Americans feel to good about their country.
> 
> Seeing is believe, Mike, that is all I've got to say. :asian:
> 
> upnorthkyosa



Indian Reservations are probably a unique case. Sad thing is, they are a group that I feel for, as we are the ones who put them there.

Slavery is the next ugliest thing, and since 50% of the poverty numbers were black, I think you can see why.

I'm not denying the existance of what you saw. I just have an issue on the number of truely poor in that "news" article.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Yea, I've seen the poverty stricken of Dorchester or Boston. With their 150 dollar nike's.
> 
> 2. But we still live in the greatest country ever, IMO. Room to grow, of course.
> 
> ...



You wrote:
1. These people aren't poor.

2. This country offers the millions of poor people all the opportunity anyone needs, 

I think you are a little too general then - the quotes just don't line up.

#1, I HAVE seen this.
#2, you didn't really make any reasonable correlation.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

I lived the first 20yrs of my life near a NE reservation. Some are now making a fortune selling gas, cigarettes, gambling etc.....strange thing is none of that $$ seems to go to building schools, medical centers, housing etc.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

Oh dear. 

1. See, if you have 150 dollar Nikes, you cannot truly be poor, because as your post elsewhere went on to claim, poverty means you don't have anything at all.

2. See, if we live in the greatest country ever, with, room to grow, then anybody can succeed and any failure can only be theirs.

3. See, if people are poor, "because they want to," be, then it's all their fault. 

That is, they aren't poor, America offers them opportunity not to be poor, and anyway being poor is your own damn fault anyway. 

Man, go read Cornel West's old, "Race Matters," willya?

Incidentally, estimates are that there are something on the order of 40,000 slaves in this country at the present time. Minimum. And we are 23rd on the list of infant mortality stats, and dropping.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh dear.
> 
> 1. See, if you have 150 dollar Nikes, you cannot truly be poor, because as your post elsewhere went on to claim, poverty means you don't have anything at all.
> 
> ...




1. Nope. Because if you really felt you were going to be hungry or die, with nobody to back you up, you do not have the mentality of a poor person.

2. Again, this is illogical.

3. In my own defense here, someone else posted that.

Kudos to you and the other left thinkers though. If there's one thing you can do is steer a discussion away from the original subject.

For yours and other's sake, I'll repeat that there are not 34 million poor, starving, unsheltered people in this country. Some of our "poor" live better than others in this world.

Read in and twist away....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

So in other words, those 34 million poor don't exist because they're not really poor. OK, fine.

By the way, those 1 million plus kids who go to bed hungry every night? The several million abused kids? The five million plus kids without health insurance? They don't exist either.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So in other words, those 34 million poor don't exist because they're not really poor. OK, fine.
> 
> By the way, those 1 million plus kids who go to bed hungry every night?



Hmmm...so it is 1 Mil and not 34?

I'm confused. Poor, but not hungry. How DO we categorize ther remaining 33 Million. Wait, did this article come out 60-some-odd days before an election?

Gosh darn it, I think I got it now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

Poverty is defined as a four person family living on or under $19,500 dollars a year.  The census shows that there are 34,000,000 million people in this country that fit that definition.  I think we need to toss out the emotionally charged word "poor" and take a look at the definition presented in the article.  I hope this clarifies things.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 29, 2004)

No, Michael, I was pointing out that again, people handle these issues most commonly by explaining them away. Or, they attempt to deflect the facts away.

How they reconcile these sorts of realities with their hallucinations about America and their religious principles, I have no idea. Well, I mean to say that I understand how they do it, I've just never quite been able to understand how they allow themselves to get away with it.

But that aside, the facts seem to be that during Bush's Presidency, the number of people classified as, "poor," has grown by over a million. That's a lot of people, however you slice it.


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 29, 2004)

We don't have poor people where I live. There were some people living under the railroad bridge with no permanent home, income or food, but the police did their job and chased them away to someone elses town.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But that aside, the facts seem to be that during Bush's Presidency, the number of people classified as, "poor," has grown by over a million. That's a lot of people, however you slice it.



Fine, but that's the thing. People look at the tiny slices and never the whole picture. Poverty numbers go up and down.

I'm still waiting for the definitive link that "This is W's fault."


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 29, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Fine, but that's the thing. People look at the tiny slices and never the whole picture. Poverty numbers go up and down.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the definitive link that "This is W's fault."


I was wondering about this myself when reading the article.  All the comparisons that it makes (from what I can recall, mind you) are only as distant as Bush's first year in office.  If they want to show how it's Dubya's fault, they could try showing how maybe his administration has caused a deviation from regular changes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

1. The abrupt rise in oil prices contingent upon an unnecessary war in the mideast.

2. The collapse of several major companies, including Enron, as a direct result of Bush's curious approach to regulatory policies. The attendant loss of retirement plans, savings, stock options, etc., for some hundreds of thousands of people.

3. Republican deficit spending.

4. Bush's presiding over the continuing export of jobs at all levels.

But not to worry. None of this exists. None of it has anything to do with poverty. There are no poor people. Nobody lost their job over the last four years. The economy's doing great, despite those pesky numbers.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

Just another point to add in to this discussion.

That the number of people living in poverty conditions has grown by 1.3 million people, according to the Census Bureau should also be viewed that this is the *third consecutive year* that this number has *increased.*


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 30, 2004)

While Home Ownership is at a high....


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2004)

yes it is.

I refer the gentleman to Mr. Edwards - "Two Americas".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 30, 2004)

See, under Clinton poverty figures go  DOWN, under Bush poverty figures go UP....kinda reminiscent of the Federal deficit, ain't it?

As for home ownership, the Fed under Greenspan kept loan rates incredibly low because of the poor economy. 

And not that it'll bother anybody, but a) the median home price in LA county is now well over 300,000; b) we continue to build more and more homes in high-risk areas such as the Florida panhandle and burn/flood areas out here in SoCal.

But them poor people? Still don't exist. The well-documented fact that the 400-to-1 difference between the highest paid CEO and the lowest paid company worker in this country, as compared to something like 24-to-1 in England, the European country with the biggest income gap...well, that doesn't exist either. Mere Martian propaganda.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> See, under Clinton poverty figures go  DOWN, under Bush poverty figures go UP....kinda reminiscent of the Federal deficit, ain't it?
> 
> As for home ownership, the Fed under Greenspan kept loan rates incredibly low because of the poor economy.



Actually, kinda reminiscent of the economy, which was handed over in 2000. 

Also, Greenspan did not keep loan rates low, he lowered them under President Bush. This, along with tax cuts for the working class and families (who are 70% of this ecomony), are the reason for the economic rebound and hopefully soon, a lower poverty rate.

I guess it's easier to just skim taxes off the dot-com bubble and look like you are helping the poor than it is to turn it around when the bubble pops.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 31, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> <snip> I'm still waiting for the news to start playing the stories on all the dead and dying who starve to death each day here. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but it just aint gettin' played. Well, not 34 million times. 1 time is enough to make most take a step back and be thankful for what they have. But we still live in the greatest country ever, IMO. Room to grow, of course. I'm just a little tired of the spin and fuzzy math.



Until the U.S. Government relinquishes control back to the Media like it should be, (and IMO they do have control) we'll NEVER hear about the dead and dying except from rappers, and guys like Mike Moore and others who are anti-government and managed to get their spins out before they were convienently misplaced else-where... away.

It happens and even if it IS reported by the media it's usually in print and around page 11 or 14 of the newspaper buried among JC Penny ads and the Home-Depot coupons. 

While I was at poverty level (and techinically I *still * am) I personally own between $500 to $700 worth of caving gear. Does this put me into the _same_ catagory as those who wear $200 Nike's?? 
Geez, well, considering that I purchased _each_ and _every piece_  of gear ... one piece at a  time over the last 14 years... I just don't see the comparison... same goes for the Nike owners. They _could _ have worked at a temp. agency for a couple of days/weeks and rewarded themselves with these kewl shues... Or gotten them by _*ahem*_   other means... who knows? Mebbe they were a gift? 
Until we know for sure *HOW* they managed to have such expensive shoes while living in the projects I don't think that we need to critique their purchasing power over the fact of their poor judgement in spending habits. 
The shoes are iconic and they can (psychologically) lift the spirits of those who are wearing them. ... I may be poor but I got some damn good shoes!



> "...poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantaged live in substandard housing in the inner cities... and they're broke! They don't have a negative cash-flow position... they're f---ing broke! Or maybe they were fired. You know fired? Management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area so these people are no longer viable members of the work force?  ~George Carlin on Euphanisims


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2004)

Any way you slice it. Mike, poverty rates (and welfare rates) DOWN under Clinton, and UP under Bush. Can't git away from it.

So too with the deficit: DOWN under Clinton, UP under Bush.

But never let reality fash ye, lad.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> b) we continue to build more and more homes in high-risk areas such as the Florida panhandle and burn/flood areas out here in SoCal.[\QUOTE]
> 
> Um, call me ignorant or whatever, but what does this have to do with the economic gap in America?  And by high-risk, I assume you mean weather-wise (the current hurricane coming from the east is top on my mind).  So building in high-risk areas is a problem and all, but it's related to the economic gap how?
> 
> And here, I'll say it for ya: Don't let reality farsh ya', lad.  Feel better?


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 2, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/index.html
> 
> Four More Years!


Could other interpretations of causes (such as post 9/11 economy, global perspectives of American market stability....) be the causes of these raw statistics and not necessarily the current administration?  Are there population swells of changing lifestyles for adults who went from either working to retirment income status or graduating minors with part time jobs while in college that could be skewing these numbers?  What about a possible increase of 'naturalized' citizens/immigrants who are on social services/minimum wage earnings as they build thier cultural capital to earn better wages?  Remember how the baby boomer generation has impacted healthcare statistics because of age.  Could be having the same impact on wage statistics as well.

I don't know about you folks, but I try to remember that raw statistics leave much room for interpretation of the root causes for the trends as well as how these raw numbers correlate with other information.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 2, 2004)

Building in high-risk, ecologically-unsound areas is related to the economy because it is just another aspect of unsustainable growth. See:

a) when we have to rebuild, and do so repeatedly, IT COSTS MONEY that could be better spent elsewhere;

b) high-risk areas demand high rate insurance, which everybody pays for, and THIS COSTS MONEY;

c) building in high-risk areas often contributes directly to the sorts of ecological damage that trash businesses such as fishing and tourism, and THIS COSTS JOBS AND MONEY.

But I think I'll let the latest Cat. IV hurricane--which is working hard on Cat. V--do the explaining for me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Building in high-risk, ecologically-unsound areas is related to the economy because it is just another aspect of unsustainable growth. See:
> 
> a) when we have to rebuild, and do so repeatedly, IT COSTS MONEY that could be better spent elsewhere;
> 
> ...



These hurricanes are a one/two punch to the insurence agency.  I vote for no bail out.  People need to start making better decisons.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> These hurricanes are a one/two punch to the insurence agency. I vote for no bail out. People need to start making better decisons.


Would you have said that to early farmers during land offers in the 1800's and early 1900's of America because of Indian raid dangers, drought.... "NO SOUP FOR YOU?"  

What about health benefits for those injured in said living areas/conditions?  Do we deny medical treatment because they chose to live there in 'poor judgement?'  I don't see the consistency to other socially minded points you have made.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 2, 2004)

Well, considering that the subsidies you're suggesting were being given to people who were in the process of taking Indian land and destroying other people's lives--not in all cases, to be sure, but in many--yeah, I probably would have said, "You're on your own."

I might also note that building a six bedroom ugly, oversized house after ripping out a mangrove forest, so you can take your fat butt around and around in circles on a jet-ski, or flattening forest to crank out cheap trailer parks and strip malls, is not exactly fulfilling the fronteir spirit of heroic adventure.

After all, Republicans are busy denying health care, child care, etc., to the poor on the grounds of their immorality and irresponsibility. 'bout time we applied the same logic to others, n'est pas?


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> After all, Republicans are busy denying health care, child care, etc., to the poor on the grounds of their immorality and irresponsibility. 'bout time we applied the same logic to others, n'est pas?


Well in this day of Republicans aren't....

NYS has Child Health Plus programs and Healthcare plans for those who don't have coverage or can't get coverage because of employment or because employers don't offer it.... partially funded by federal money.  It aint awesome, but it is there when it wasn't there before.  It's incept was because of Clinton Admin policies but it still survived the 'evil Republican Power' of the current adminstration and has really taken off.

Ecological issues aside, Insurance is about risk/profit... I do think that making my insurance rates flux because of hurricane risk pools is crazy, but denying folks insurance is like denying someone health coverage because of a risky job...oh say like military service.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 2, 2004)

:lurk:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Would you have said that to early farmers during land offers in the 1800's and early 1900's of America because of Indian raid dangers, drought.... "NO SOUP FOR YOU?"
> 
> What about health benefits for those injured in said living areas/conditions?  Do we deny medical treatment because they chose to live there in 'poor judgement?'  I don't see the consistency to other socially minded points you have made.



If the federal government gets involved, we need to help the people who are hurt by the hurricane.  The difference is that the action is not promoting a collusion of government and business.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I might also note that building a six bedroom ugly, oversized house after ripping out a mangrove forest, so you can take your fat butt around and around in circles on a jet-ski, or flattening forest to crank out cheap trailer parks and strip malls, is not exactly fulfilling the fronteir spirit of heroic adventure.
> 
> After all, Republicans are busy denying health care, child care, etc., to the poor on the grounds of their immorality and irresponsibility. 'bout time we applied the same logic to others, n'est pas?


Not everyone who lives in Florida or California is a Republican building six-bedroom "ugly" mansions and ripping up the environment in doing so.  There are government committees, in Florida at least, making sure that all property changes conform with EPA guidelines.  My parents have had to go through a couple months' worth of mess trying to make sure there are enough mangrove trees in the area before putting up a sea-wall.  Obviously this doesn't speak for all of Florida, but there you go.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 2, 2004)

Lemme see if I'm following the logic here.

We should provide government funds and bailouts for people who build homes in places that WE KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY are going to be blown down every ten or twenty years, places in which it is also quite damaging to the environment to build, and this has nothing to do with business pressures.

And we should NOT provide funds to, say, Planned Parenthood, because their clients should be moral and careful and forthoughty enough to stay out of trouble.

OK--that's what I thought.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

So the options, in your view, are to either evacuate all residences in Florida's hurricane path (i.e. the whole freakin' state), or just tell them all "sorry, you built in a dangerous area, so no support for you".  

As for the Planned Parenthood thing, I hope that wasn't directed at me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 2, 2004)

So YOUR options are to build and build and build, endlessly, no matter what the area, and then complain that somebody checked with the mangroves before you got to build a sea wall--which probably wouldn't be needed, except for the fact that somebody decided to build in an area that needs a sea wall if you're even going to try to have a house there.

Oh, and I should help pay for this. Several times.

As for Planned Parenthood....huh? I had in mind the Bush administrations ongoing attacks.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 2, 2004)

So what you're saying is along the lines of:

"If you eat McDonald's every night, you're not entitled to health insurance payouts when you have a coronary."

Some fool will proabably say the food is addicting.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

Well, first off I wasn't complaining about the sea-wall, or the mangroves; just using that as an example that the people in this state aren't just knocking down trees left and right for the houses.   And, last time I checked, it's my parents who are paying for the sea-wall, not you.  

Second off, answer the damn question.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

Oh yeah, before we continue this rant, should it be started in a new thread, or is it close enough in topic?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> These hurricanes are a one/two punch to the insurence agency.  I vote for no bail out.  People need to start making better decisons.



Apparently, my Right brain, overcame my ability to Reason...  

Regarding this new topic, check out a book by John Mcphee "The Control of Nature".


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is along the lines of:
> 
> "If you eat McDonald's every night, you're not entitled to health insurance payouts when you have a coronary."
> 
> Some fool will proabably say the food is addicting.


Wow, I don't usually agree with you, but good point.  *Golf clap*


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Wow, I don't usually agree with you, but good point.  *Golf clap*



How about smoking?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is along the lines of:
> 
> "If you eat McDonald's every night, you're not entitled to health insurance payouts when you have a coronary."
> 
> Some fool will proabably say the food is addicting.


Actually, there are Actuaries who will calculate the additional risks invovled and adjust everyone's premiums higher .... Insurance Companies pay Actuaries an awful lot of money so that they don't ever have to worry about bein' in the red.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 2, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Well getting back to the original topic... IMO most of these poverty strickened people are there because they want to be there. Many are living on welfare and what-ever non-earned income they have going for them.
> Many are not educated enough to get employment suitable enough to lift them above the poverty line or they do not have the necessary skills to obtain said employment that they need.
> As one who used to live at or below poverty levels on more than one occasion... I'm working full time right now and am basically calling myself living rather than surviving... I'm just one step above poverty and hope to stay there long enough to get to the next step. It's called a JOB... you know J-O-B? *J*ust *O*ver *B*roke?... anyway I've seen enough examples of these variables in the poverty section of our society to know who are sincere in wanting to get out and raise standards of living but are struggling and some mightily at that, and others who are just plain LAZY and don't want to. And yes there are those who are just incapable by some circumstances or another.
> 
> ...




Question?

So, just because they do not have money, you are saying they are not really in poverty? Meaning that if you are able to get some money for no work and get by, then you should not be in poverty?

Or are you saying that these ignorant fools choice to be uneducated, and have no hope for a well paying job or carear?

Curious and sorry if you already answered.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Yea, I've seen the poverty stricken of Dorchester or Boston. With their 150 dollar nike's.
> 
> I see no motivating factors for them to improve, especially if we're giving out hard cash instead of food stamps.
> 
> ...




Mister Mike the 18K is for a family of four, and it is just over 12K for two people, so I would say it is about 6K to 8K for an individual depending on how you cut the pie. So you made twice to three times the poverty level for being single. Now if you were married and or had children then I am wrong and apologize.

I agree that people should work. I also agree that people who grow up in enighborhoods who are more worried about getting shot by the local drug lord then doing home work, or find some JOB on the street to bring in a few extra dollars to feed him/herslef and the family. Yes I know there are families out there that raise children to be on welfare. Yet I do not think this is the normal state of a healthy human being. I think a healthy human being would want to be proud of what they do and feel good about their family. And not to sound like my friend Robert, society has painted a picture for us to be sucessful. It includes a spouse and cars and a house and kids, and big screen tv's and other toys. Yet, to measure poverty, I would like to know what that is. I have some friends, he makes 26 to 30K a year and feeds and takes care of a family of four. He has some medical insurance also from his company. Yet he spent some time un-employed when his shop shut down, and he could not get another job in the same field and was not educate in another. He started some tech courses at a local CC and then he became a student and was able to get a job.

I am not condemning anyone here, just expressing a point of view.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, with all due respect, people with 150 dollar nikes are not in "poverty" and never were.  They weren't "given" money by the government to buy what they have, the families worked and scrimped and saved.  The reality of wellfare is far different then what the Right envisions.
> 
> As far as the starving people in this country goes...  My school provides three meals a day for EVERY kid who walks through the door.  I have lived in places in this country were EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING was starving (Pine Ridge Reservation).  I, myself, as a child, starved.  If you count up all of the people in the city or in Rural USA who are going hungry, the number is going to be GREATER then 34 million.
> 
> ...



Well in one of the better neighborhoods in the metro area, they give clothes and shoes to the homeless and those in pverty who come into the town to pan handle or find under the table jobs. The locals do not do this out of charity, they do it so it does not scare they kids. These people have/had better clothes then I do or did. Not saying it is right, yet, you can find examples everywhere of some really wierd stuff.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How about smoking?


Ehh?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, my father worked on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in SD.  I lived with him for a short time during my tumultuous young life.  In the middle of winter, we are talking about 40 mile an hour winds and minus 0 temps, children were living in cardboard boxes.  You won't see this on the news though...its not chic and it doesn't make Americans feel to good about their country.
> 
> Seeing is believe, Mike, that is all I've got to say. :asian:
> 
> upnorthkyosa



I have been on reservations and some are extremely poor, especially in the south west. Yet, somethings are changing with casino's in other areas such as in the mid west.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 2, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Ehh?



If you die because of cancer and you smoked should the person receive the death beenfits of an insurance policy?

Or step back a little should the person be elligable for organ transplants?

Or should the person be elligable for health care in the first place?

I think this si where the question was leading.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> If you die because of cancer and you smoked should the person receive the death beenfits of an insurance policy?


Well, the idea of life insurance is to cover those who were dependent on you (like I said, that's the idea only), so in that respect I'd have to say yes, because it would be unfair to those dependents to not allow the policy to be taken out just because the person did the damage to themselves. 



> Or step back a little should the person be elligable for organ transplants?


I should hope so, unless you want to say that because they smoked, they don't deserve to live. I don't like smoking and I think it's a stupid and disgusting habit, but I don't think smokers deserve to have their lives denied of them. 



> Or should the person be elligable for health care in the first place?


Perhaps a higher premium for their policy because they're knowingly endangering their health would be appropriate, but I don't think they should be denied of it completely.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 2, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, there are Actuaries who will calculate the additional risks invovled and adjust everyone's premiums higher .... Insurance Companies pay Actuaries an awful lot of money so that they don't ever have to worry about bein' in the red.



Well, as I've said before , insurance companies are evil.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, as I've said before , insurance companies are evil.




Yes they are.  They avariciously and needlessly raise malpractice insurance rates on doctors and then place the blame on frivolous lawsuits...ah, but we discussed that elsewhere.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Second off, answer the damn question.


Pardon me, let me rephrase for decency reasons: please respond to the inquiry provided, good sir.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Perhaps a higher premium for their policy because they're knowingly endangering their health would be appropriate, but I don't think they should be denied of it completely.


There is no business law against (actually I think most businesses take advantage of it) being stupid NOR is there any legal standard that you can not be an idiot.

Screening questions about smoking, drinking, lifestyle, age.... all help to establish your individual life insurance premium already.  This is already in place.

I have noticed a real "Survival of the Fittest... or at least the healthiest choice" mentallity on this topic from normally pretty humanity minded folks - as well as the same people who want to minimize government involvement in our private lives...how can gov./businesses (insurance) know any of this very specific data if they follow the 'hands off policy' previously discussed?

Should insurance companies get a copy/require annual check ups to make sure that you are within your healthy wt, blood pressure, heart rate, cholesteral levels.... in order to calculate rates?  If smoking constitutes a "your stupid and on your own" mentallity, what about bad eating habits, obesity, sanitary habits... that also put us into statistical risk categories just as much as any smoking would?

Insurance works from profit and risk models.  If your health insurance doled out a lot of money on you last year, you will have a higher premium the next.  Same with car insurance, life insurance rates....  there are already things like this in place.


----------

