Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week, President Bush cited the recent Census Report as proof "that more of our citizens are doing better in this economy, with continued rising incomes and more Americans pulling themselves out of poverty." Welcome to the latest episode of Fantasy Island with George Bush.
In fact, as a recent New York Times editorial notes, the 2005 data which the Census Report is based on (and therefore doesn't even account for those suffering from the recent credit crisis) "underscores how the gains from economic growth have failed to benefit most of the population," and that "the gains against poverty last year were remarkably narrow." Since Bush came to power poverty has risen by 9 percent.
And with the passing of the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, there is a sense that the window of opportunity the disaster opened to put poverty back on the national agenda has now closed, with too little political leadership and a media that stopped paying attention.
But while the White House and too many in Congress have indeed turned their backs on New Orleans and Americans struggling to make ends meet, Mark Greenberg, director of the Center for American Progress' (CAP) Task Force on Poverty, says that there has in fact been a "resurgence of interest" in dealing with poverty in America. He says that when it comes to NGO's, and some cities and states, the focus and determination to address the economic pain and hardship that Americans witnessed during Katrina has persisted.
Greenberg points to the US Conference of Mayors Task Force on Poverty, Work and Opportunity. Faith groups like Catholic Charities, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, and Jewish Council on Public Affairs who have "intensified their efforts." Cities like Milwaukee, Savannah, Kalamazoo, Portland, and New York. And three states with poverty commissions – Connecticut, Vermont, and Minnesota – the first two focused on child poverty and the latter on ending poverty by 2020.
"Developments like these are steps forward," Greenberg says. "It's far short of where we want to be, but it's real progress."
In 2004, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to write poverty reduction into a public act, mandating a 50 percent reduction in child poverty by 2014 and establishing the Child Poverty Prevention and Reduction Council. The Council makes recommendations on how to meet the 10-year goal but its up to others to ensure legislative action.
"Since our legislature is controlled by Democrats and the Executive branch by Republicans, there is often a chasm that divides priorities, so we lose important pieces like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and have to go back yearly to fight for them," says Juliet Manalan, Government and Public Relations Specialist for the Connecticut Association for Community Action (CAFCA). CAFCA is the umbrella organization for the state's 12 federally designated anti-poverty agencies from the 1960s War on Poverty.
In April, CAFCA convened the Connecticut Symposium on Child Poverty Reduction to develop a blueprint for action which stakeholders – agencies, business and advocacy groups, education institutions, and public policymakers – could use to address issues of poverty in a cohesive way. There was consensus on the need to establish a refundable state EITC program to supplement low-wage parents' income. (The EITC is a refundable tax credit that supplements the earnings of low- and moderate-income workers); increase parents' access to literacy, post-secondary, and vocational education; strengthen the state's Individual Development Account (IDA) program to assist in the accumulation of assets and enhance matched savings accounts; increase affordable child care so that parents can pursue work and/or education and children are prepared for success in school; ensure public or private health care coverage for families as well as access to providers; support young, at-risk families through home visiting medical and social services which enhance parent/child interaction, parent education, work and life skills, and broaden access to community resources.
In September, CAFCA will again convene over 300 participants for its "Ending Child Poverty: Investing in Our Future" annual conference. "We will provide more information on legislative efforts, business and community partnerships, policy initiatives, and workshops to support the efforts of frontline case management staff," Manalan said. "Connecticut is doing the work and building the coalitions necessary to produce lasting change."
Those coalitions are especially necessary at a time when opponents of change are digging in. There was a legislative attempt to sunset the requirement for Council recommendations this year, which would make it more difficult to track the effectiveness of anti-poverty measures as well as the scope of poverty.
"There are a lot of great people on the Council," Manalan says. "We know the body can be successful, provided the reporting requirements don't disappear."
This year, Vermont also passed legislation to create a Vermont Childhood Poverty Council and develop a strategy to reduce child poverty by 50% in ten years. According to the Rutland Herald, the bill was modeled after the Connecticut initiative. The Poverty Council will hold hearings in all 14 of the state's counties – meeting with citizens and frontline advocates – before issuing a report to the Legislature in January.
"One of my short term goals for the Council is to bring the issue back into the political conversation here in Vermont," council co-chair, Senator Doug Racine, tells me. "In fact, this is necessary if we're to make progress."
Council co-chair, Representative Ann Pugh, told the Herald: "We want to visit the four corners of the state and meet directly with people. It would be easy to hold a public hearing in Montpelier that would be filled with policymakers, but that's not what we want to do."
Racine says the 50 percent child poverty reduction goal is an ambitious one "but it's attainable."
"While we understand that state policies may not be enough in the absence of changes in Washington on tax policies and spending priorities," Racine says, "I believe that we can make significant progress if poverty becomes a high priority issue."
Greenberg agrees that leadership in Washington is necessary in order to achieve needed change. "This can't just be about the federal government," he says. "But in the long run the nation can't make dramatic progress without the federal government, and it's been the noticeably missing partner for the last number of years."
Some members of Congress are working hard to bring attention to the issue. Greenberg points to Ways and Means Committee chair, Charles Rangel, who speaks of the need to address poverty as part of a national security strategy. Rangel started off the year by holding a hearing to examine the economic costs of poverty. Economist Harry Holzer testified that the cost of sustained childhood poverty is in range of $500 billion dollars a year, roughly evenly divided between lowered productivity, increased health care costs, and increased crime-related costs. Holzer took a conservative approach, examining a set of variables that are readily quantifiable. A Republican scholar testifying at the hearing called the study "superb." As a result, this figure is one that is increasingly incorporated into analysis of poverty. (On the flip side, Rangel supports "paygo" which makes it much more difficult to get the money to invest in cutting poverty.)
Representative Jim McDermott has also played a key role as chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. Recently, Greenberg and others testified before McDermott's Committee on shortcomings regarding how we measure poverty in America – inadequacies in measuring the scope of the problem and the impact of anti-poverty efforts.
But it is Representative Barbara Lee – co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and also the Out of Poverty Caucus – who along with 13 co-sponsors is introducing the boldest legislation, incorporating the recommendations of the CAP Poverty Task Force and setting a national goal to reduce poverty by 50 percent over the next ten years.
Greenberg points to real progress already being achieved such as new minimum wage laws and expanded state EITCs. And, he says, the poverty commissions will promote overall development of state strategy, bring the issues to the forefront, promote accountability, and hopefully lead to stronger action at the federal level.
For decades Americans have heard the tired refrain, "We waged a war on Poverty and Poverty won." Taking on that view, Greenberg says, "It's a very common challenge in a discussion about poverty. It's clear from polling that people wish something could be done but they fear that government action always goes wrong or is counterproductive. But the real story of why poverty stopped falling after the early 70's isn't failed government policies. The biggest factor has been that since that time economic growth has been slower and much less equitably distributed. The fact is we've learned a lot about how to reduce poverty and we know things that work. It's ultimately a question of political will."
There is hope that many good leaders, activists and organizations across the nation are committed to the fight against poverty. We need to pay attention, and bring that energy and focus back to places like New Orleans, and demand that our political representatives do the same. As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once told us, "We may not all be guilty, but we are all responsible."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
The federal govt has denied there is poverty? Then why do we have a myriad of programs designed for the poor? Seems like the bulk of the budget goes to poverty and entitlements designed for those who need all kinds of help..What is the poverty level income at these days...seems it keeps getting raised during every election cycle....
Also, if one has no skills in todays society then it will be hard for those to improve their standing..and given the state of our schools and where the emphasis lies, it should be no surprise that 40% to 50% drop out rates(more in some communitys) will show up 10 years later with complaints about the "hard working people not being able to afford a decent housing",..it will go hand in hand with no education and no marketable skills equals no higher incomes.
Posted by john maasch at 09/04/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/04/2007 @ 11:21am | ignore this person
just imagine your iraq folly spent on schools instead.
just imagine.
instead these drop out's great-great grandkids will still be paying for it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 11:32am
We don't suffer from a shortage of money spent on schools, we suffer from teaching useful fields of study at schools...science, math, economics, REAL WORLD ECONOMICS AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE, as opposed to what some socialistic NEA member thinks they should be..too much social engineering and not enough engineering.
Most our companys have to teach basic fundementals to graduates they hire...crapp that should have been learned in high school..Iraq, when it ends, will not result in our schools improving..the entire education system in the US needs to be scrapped and scraped..from the unions down to the buildings..
if our education system were a patient in a hospital, it would have been declared dead decades ago.
Posted by john maasch at 09/04/2007 @ 12:01pm
"But it is Representative Barbara Lee ☼ – co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and also the Out of Poverty Caucus – who along with 13 co-sponsors is introducing the boldest legislation..."
So, ONCE AGAIN, you don't have the LEADERSHIP of Congress (Rangel, Chair of Ways and Means)...but you've got Barbara Lee (insert Woolsey, Kucinich, or whoever from the Prog. Caucus) and THIRTEEN (may go as high as 20) co-sponsors of a bill that's not going anywhere. (just like impeachment?)
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 12:15pm
KVH: ....It's clear from polling that people wish something could be done but they fear that government action always goes wrong or is counterproductive. But the real story of why poverty stopped falling after the early 70's isn't failed government policies.
Amazing! The REAL answer to KVH's "real story" ; is in her own preceding statement "that government action always goes wrong or is counterproductive"!
No Leftwing media sources will highlight the fact that poverty ratios for all races, EXCEPT blacks, have declined....with the fastest declines among Hispanics who are increasingly moving up the income quintile!
What exactly led to the "poverty stopped falling after the early 70's"? You don't suppose "government actions" that made black fathers non-essential to young black families may have something to do with this? IF Hispanics and Asians (many are displaced refugees) can climb America's ladder of opportunity, why can't the almost entirely native blacks? "government actions" promoted by Libs and atrocious black leadership, is quite logically the answer! An Inconvenient Truth? Pope a Catholic?
Posted by Happy at 09/04/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/04/2007 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person
well scrap them. i've seen many in detroit that are already scrap.
but you'll have to use money to start new ones.
if you privatize all schools then an ever increasing segment of the population will remain uneducated and the whole thing will spiral downward.
i'm proud to have attended public schools from kindergarten through university (in the u.s.).
and i ain't dumb.
education is the key.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 12:21pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/04/2007 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person
well HAPLESS,
take a look around. factories are closing everywhere. so mom and dad (even white ones) both are now working for diddly-squat at the local Sprawl-Mart working for 1/3 of their previous salaries, selling stuff to people who work at the local Burger Schlopp working for 1/4 their previous salaries.
and what do they sell. chinese junk that costs 20% less and breaks twice as fast as the stuff they used to make.
and who keeps the difference. you know who. it isn't the chinese workers.
plus gas costs twice as much (because of chinese demand) and you have to drive twice as far to get to the store.
yep, whitey's just as bad off.
remember:
for ex.
worker a 20,000
worker b 20,000
worker c 20,000
worker d 20,000
CEO e 200,000,000
average salary = 40,016,000
(all caucasian)
ain't to many black CEO's
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 12:33pm
a familiar refrain is "for the children"
"end child poverty"
"save the planet for the children"
"health care for the children"
"the children are our future"
well folks the future is now. if you don't help the parents, too, the children are going to f$*ked, no matter what you do for them.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 1:02pm
FZ,
I wouldn't privatise the schools..just reorganise them with private expertise.
Install common sense, practical course study and taught by people who have actualy DONE some of the things they are trying to teach, make the teaching a profession again, complete with a pay structure that would parallel pay scales of a corporation or the private sector, rewarding bonus structure, parental involement is mandatory, ass whuppings for disruptive punks would be the normal..a bit of the military model wouldn't hurt...and if you couldn't read at a 5th grade level, you didn't move to the 6th grade level unless you were able...I might even look at eliminating the current grade structures and move students through bases on ability...therefore not holding back those quicker studies and ensuring those that learn at a slower rate learn and are not pushed through anyway..children would no longer be sacrificed to federal funding formulas and union horse shit demands that always seem to show up in the 1st week of school.. That would be my starting point...also, schools are not meals on wheels or baby sitting services.
Posted by john maasch at 09/04/2007 @ 1:07pm
JOHN MAASCH:
Yeah, private expertise... you mean the way Iraq is being run?
And here, I thought the Bush Administration was supposed to be the CEO Administration. The sad thing is, it really is. What's even more sad is, people like you don't get it, just how bad it is for the country.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/04/2007 @ 1:27pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 12:33pm
Slightly off-topic, but not much. Did some research, apparently we in the States have 371 billionaires. You guys have 22, the richest of whom is David Thomson at $24B (the next highest come in at single digit billions).
(Side-note: "Thomson Corporation" from which Mr Thomson derives his billions....is based in Connecticut in the United States.)
What meaning do we ascribe to this? Seems if 371 people in the US are billionaires (many more HUNDREDS millionaires), then that statistic you had earlier about "distribution of wealth" might be skewed in the favor of countries (such as yours) where there are fewer at the top, so that the "disparity" SEEMS much less.
No? (or Non? for purposes of Canadian bilingualism, eh?...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 2:10pm
Seems like the bulk of the budget goes to poverty and entitlements designed for those who need all kinds of help.
the key word in this sentence being "seems like". yeah, of course it "seems like" that when you're looking at from the point of view of a RETARD.
but i hate to brake it to you johnny, but the vast majority of the budget goes towards the MILITARY, you know, the geniuses behind the brilliant iraq war.
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:21pm
We don't suffer from a shortage of money spent on schools, we suffer from teaching useful fields of study at schools...science, math, economics, REAL WORLD ECONOMICS AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE, as opposed to what some socialistic NEA member thinks they should be..too much social engineering and not enough engineering
where does one begin retorting to a statement like this? i haven't heard anything so ridiculous in a long, long time.....
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:23pm
When we 'invest' in ‘things' that we value and that can appreciate when maintained, like our infrastructure, even a needed new business (es), new resource(s) of energy-- no one questions the benefit and thus the investment. Yet, rather than use the term 'invest' in our greatest resource-- our 'human resources', we label the investment 'entitlement'; along with the negative connotations. Why do we not see that the only reason not to appreciate our human resources by investing generously is that in the 'short-term', it is not as profitable for corporate profiteering? It is time we relegated corporate type management to its true location-- out of any governmental lobbying and/or control. It should always be the other way around. People control their government-- government controls the corporations .
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/04/2007 @ 2:24pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 2:10pm
how to lie with.............
alas, not a perfect science.
maybe we need a "truly-foecked up index" to prove statistically what we all see anecdotally.
"I believe and I say it is true Democratic feeling, that all the measures of the government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer."
guess who said that and you'll win a prize. no googling.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 2:27pm
the reason why we need "socialist" thinkers is to expand the power of the working class. yes, math and science are important, but they do not suffice. we need workers who are critical of the system in which they are enmeshed. otherwise, they go through their lives just accepting whatever those in power enforce or believe.
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:27pm
DARLADOON:
You do realize that JM went to school to study that Fuzzy Economics to go along with his Fuzzy Math.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/04/2007 @ 2:29pm
and the reason why scandinavia has the greatest democracies on earth is because they.....gasp....are socialists. and invest heavily in education......not the military. of the top 10 democracies on earth, all scandinavian countries are included. ireland, new zealand, canada, round out the rest.
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:29pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2007 @ 2:29pm |
guess what, darladooooon.
i'm (we're, sorry to my wife and son) paying for my wife's biology degree here in canada ON A MUSICIAN'S SALARY.
hope she finishes soon. if viceroy harper wins a majority in the next election, we're down the tubes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 2:35pm
hey, i have a great idea: let's just teach our children how to beat the f*ck out of anyone who isn't american? that'll take us back to the days of real american power.
nobody doubts the importance of SCIENCE (just look at president bush, he could really use it).....but let's be serious about its PRACTICAL APPLICATION (read: no foreign policy think tank "experts" advocating unilateral military strikes to spread democracy in geographical regions traditionally hostile to our interests).
duh.
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:38pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/04/2007 @ 2:29pm
and now he eats $18 fuzzy peaches imported from South Africa while his neighbour's fruit rots on the trees.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 2:38pm
frosty, what's your point? just curious.
p.s. harper sucks, no doubt, but that'll change next time 'round.....
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:38pm
just think: bill kristol studied political economics......
and then......
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 2:39pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2007 @ 2:38pm
well, people here watch 24, too. and thus the fear-mongering gets to them.
the liberals (don't be fooled by the name='70s democrats) were in power for a long, corrupt period that has left them in shambles.
the ndp (leftish) are a third party currently propping up harper's minority, much to the chagrin of many people.
the bloc quebecois are a separatist party who will lose seats because the sovereignty movement is waning. because the majority of the liberal scandals were based in quebec, any seats the BQ lose will go the harper's (evangelical, no less) conservatives.
the greens are moving up, and will probably win a few seats for the first time in the next election (whenever that is).
so, you've got the centre in shambles and the left divided. simple math puts the conservatives on top.
luckily, harper has made many missteps (afghanistan, kyoto, montebello) that have pissed people off (how ironic, stupid mistakes being seen as "lucky"). this may actually be their demise or at least keep them from obtaining their dreamed of majority (4-5 years of a no-holds-barred "president" harper and i'll probably end up back in méxico ¡viva méxico!--oh wait, the supreme court gave el señor bizniz calderón the presidency there. sound familiar?)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 2:55pm
frosty, you have to understand, though, that canada is culturally light years ahead of the US. despite the recent conservative ascendence (which is partly the effect of the bush presidency), canadians are more skeptical of power....
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 3:02pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2007 @ 3:02pm
yeah, i know. i just like having my cake and eating it, too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 3:10pm
frosy, well i don't cake, ever. i like plain ol' nuts and fruits....
Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2007 @ 3:15pm
canadians are more skeptical of power....----Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2007 @ 3:02pm
Curious, DD....you seem to be praising being "more skeptical of power"...yet you praise socialism which is investing more power in the Government?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 3:30pm
We who are beginning to understand how to leverage our technological advances to give all Americans a legitimate voice in real participatory democracy, need to appreciate the importance of this cusp of change on which we're poised. We can have a real say in our priorities as a nation, as long as we're free to continue discussions such as this, and grow this dialogue into a national conversation.
To paraphrase the words of someone I know you all love :), Michael Moore, are we going to be a "we" society, or a "me" society? Do we really believe what Jesus meant when he said "As ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matthew 25:40)? If we do, let's work together and see what we can do to change the dynamics of American politics, and start living up to our highest ideals.
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/04/2007 @ 3:31pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 2:27pm
I just find it odd that from movie stars to corporate HQs, the paradigm of "the real money is to be made South of the Border" holds true in the Dominion of Canada?
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 3:32pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 09/04/2007 @ 3:31pm
Can "we" all have "foundations" who own Halliburton stock, and then rail against Halliburton....as Mike did?
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 3:33pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2007 @ 2:39pm
I changed my major 5 times. The economy was working for me right out of grad school, but raising a family, pretty much dictated that I take on more than just teaching and making art. Thus buying a suit...
Moving up and around, through the administration, definitely helped me understand a different kind of hard work, politics and the power of a well timed good idea and the ability to express it verbally and visually; then realize it.
When I was young, my family was poor to middle income. I have to say, a lot of my freinds messed-up early, either got killed, went to prison, or are still doing what they were doing 30-40 years ago, still living at home or divorced, same job... lots of sad stories, a few not that sad. So I see myself as being very fortunate for the parents and family I have, the time I was born into, the ability to afford school, healthcare, for myself and my daughters (just barely), and for all the lucky breaks I was prepared to accept.
'Poor' is not being able to say that.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/04/2007 @ 3:47pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 3:33pm
Um... I have no idea what that means. Mike Gravel, maybe? I dunno.
But I strongly suspect that when policies are influenced by an increasingly informed and involved general public, our stumbling progress will be defined by much more overall common sense, instead of shifting justifications that only confuse and madden the majority of decent people among the poor and middle class.
Mike (whoever he is) and his foundations notwithstanding.
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/04/2007 @ 3:53pm
Michael Meyers is exec. dir. of the NY Civil Rights Coalition and former Asst. Nat'l Dir. of the NAACP.....he wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ today: "The NAACP at a Crossroads" (his title is kind to the NAACP!)
Right out the gate, Mr. Meyers ridicules the NAACP's greatest recent publicity stunt to ban the n-word! Hip, hip, hooray!
With recent leaders like Julian Bond who "once likened the Republican Party to the Taliban"......and Kweisi Mfume who "openly boasted of NAACP efforts to defeat Republicans"......is it any wonder the GOP consider it to be a waste of time to deal w/this `organization' which can do nothing other than to air racial grievances while lashing out at "Uncle Toms" who dare to behave like and speak of the established middle-class values......
Now, "the NAACP is in dire straits, financial and otherwise. It is cutting some 40% of its staff..." Couldn't be happening to a more worthless bunch!
Posted by Happy at 09/04/2007 @ 3:54pm
frosy, well i don't cake, ever. i like plain ol' nuts and fruits....
Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2007 @ 3:15pm
i guess that's why you hang out here ;o]
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 3:57pm
the liberals (don't be fooled by the name='70s democrats) were in power for a long, corrupt period that has left them in shambles.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 2:55pm
Have you made a comparison of the dem level of corruption of yore to the current height that repub new cons have taken corruption to?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/04/2007 @ 3:58pm
Oh (blush). Michael Moore. Sorry. It's been a long day already.
Well, no need to adjust based on whether Michael Moore is a perfect guy. I used his words, but it's not about whether we can tear down this or that speaker. I'm sure we can all point out Moore's hyprocrisies every day for a year.
I was talking about us, not Michael Moore. Not many of us have Halliburton stock. The question is, what do we think?
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/04/2007 @ 4:01pm
I just find it odd that from movie stars to corporate HQs, the paradigm of "the real money is to be made South of the Border" holds true in the Dominion of Canada?
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 3:32pm
odd syntax for a question--i'll assume it was a slip of the finger.
well, ya'll got more money. and hollywood. i can only speak for myself. i'd just as soon live in cuba as in the u.s. (shock and dismay, did he say cuba?).
please don't turn this thread into a discussion of cuba. i'm a musician and my wife would like to study medicine so it's not a bad choice.
we'd have less stuff, but that's not what is important to us.
like i've said here many times, there are good and bad aspects to any place.
now, back to poverty.
we've got plenty here in canada. aboriginal peoples, people left behind because of industrial shifts, immigrants unable to "assimilate" (if the u.s. is a melting pot, canada is a salad).
BTW where i live, the u.s. is north of the border.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:08pm
I can't recall. Did KVH mention that, if you took our "poor" and formed a separate country with them, that they would be in the top 5% of the wealthiest nations in the world?"
Posted by usc1 at 09/04/2007 @ 4:12pm
The growing disconnect between today's realities and the American Left's notion of all things Scandinavian.....long article below fro The Brussels Journal:
Anyone interested in the incredible rises in rapes in these `utopias' over the past few years, Google it and be amazed!
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2278
The Death of Sweden
From the desk of Fjordman on Tue, 2007-07-31 08:59
I still get questions as to why I, being Norwegian, write more about Sweden than I do about my own country. First of all: I do write about Norway sometimes. And second of all: If you look at capital cities alone, Oslo could quite possibly be the worst city in Scandinavia. However, in virtually all other respects, Sweden is worse. And yes, it is every bit as bad as I say it is.
The primary reason why I write so much about Sweden is because it is the most totalitarian country in the Western world, and should thus serve as a warning to others. The second reason is that Sweden, like my own country, now needs some "tough love." Too many Swedes still cling on to the myth of the "Swedish model" while their country is disintegrating underneath their feet. If Sweden the nation is to be saved – if it still can be saved, I'm not so sure – then Sweden the ideological beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity.
According to news site The Local, a judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and an axe was left outside his home. "When a judge in a Swedish court has his home vandalised in this way, it is of course very serious," said Ingvar Paulsson, head of the Gothenburg District Administrative Court . The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) writes on its homepage that the attack was motivated by the situation of Iraqi asylum seekers. The Swedish Board of Migration has ruled that they should be deported if they cannot show that a threat exists against them personally.
It should be noted here that Sweden alone in 2006 accepted almost as many asylum applications from Iraqis as all other European countries did combined. Native Swedes, who live in a country that was one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world only 30 years ago, will be a minority in their own country within a few decades, if current trends continue. Sweden is self-destructing at a pace that is probably unprecedented in history, but for the extreme Left, even this isn't fast enough......
Posted by Happy at 09/04/2007 @ 4:14pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 09/04/2007 @ 4:01pm
Well, when somebody starts lecturing on the "'we' society" versus the "'me' society" (while living in the "'me' society" himself)....like a Republican from Idaho attacking gay rights, while hanging out in the bathroom stalls....I don't take them very seriously.
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 4:15pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/04/2007 @ 3:58pm
'scuse any confusion
this was an attempt to reference the liberal party's politics with something you were familiar with.
no, the bunch you have right now are comparable to a government like nigeria's (financially) and like satan's (morally)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:16pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 4:08pm
Frost, couple of points-
1. You make a statement like "Cuba over the USA", YOU are starting a discussion on Cuba, not me. I'd simply ask, what happens if you write and sing a song in opposition to Comrade Fidel THERE....versus what happens to you if you do the same against Bush here. Last I checked the Dixie Chicks made more money than they lost...and none of them went to a "re-education camp"!
2. Do you have less "stuff" by choice...or governmental seizure?
3. Is it a matter of degrees? This "poverty in Canada" versus "poverty in the USA"...or numbers? Again, the statistics might seem worse in our case, simply by virtue of us having more folks than ya'll do.
4. I know you're in the Windsor area (and the old riddle "What large American city NOT in Alaska is north of Canada?....Detroit) comes into play. Was referring to the fact that "in general", you guys are "up" and we're "below".
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 4:21pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 4:15pm
You have every right not to take Michael Moore seriously. Sometimes, I don't, either. But by attacking Moore, you sidestep the question: which approach do you favor?
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/04/2007 @ 4:21pm
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 4:12pm
maybe. but i bet you don't want to get on the greyhound and go live there.
Tuition (Semester)
Regular Session 001
Undergraduate Students
12-18 units $16,657.00 + books + misc fees + housing+ beer = more than you'd make in your "new" country
http://www.usc.edu/academics/classes/term_20071/tuition_and_fees.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:22pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/04/2007 @ 4:14pm
yep, fjordman said it. it's gotta be true.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:26pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/04/2007 @ 4:14pm
yep, fjordman said it. it's gotta be true.
*had to post this one again. one liners sometimes get sent into Gen. Clark's time machine.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:28pm
FZ:
I would choose it over 95% of the other countries in the world (give or take a few). And so would you.
Posted by usc1 at 09/04/2007 @ 4:33pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 4:21pm
1) i didn't pick cuba over the u.s. "just as soon" means equal. i'd just as soon live in sweden as new zealand. i'd love to live in charleston, s.c. sure i couldn't sing a song like this one in cuba:
fidel's a dweeb
raul's a chump
let me vote
and pick my leader
oooooh baby, yeah!!
(pretty bad, huh?)
but i wouldn't have to worry about getting killed in a car-jacking or my son getting shot at school.
there's good and bad everywhere.
2) by choice (we spend our money on school and good, good food. and a little Côtes du Rhône at christmas)
3) you know, if we could post pictures i could give you a quiz where you would have to guess if the place was in windsor or detroit. one of the greatest aspects to globalization is that one can be equally poor as someone half-way around the world (or across the river)
4) the armpit of ontario.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:42pm
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 4:33pm
50%
it's a lot easier to be poor in a place like méxico.
food's cheap. housing's cheap. buses and taxis are cheap. don't need heating. don't need a.c.
there's good and bad everywhere
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 09/04/2007 @ 4:21pm
At worst, "We society" thinkers tend to CRUSH "me's" when they gain power. "Me Society" thinkers still allow the possibility of voluntary "we societies". Just a fact of history from the Nazis to the Soviets.
At best, we get kids protesting in Paris over the "indignity" of risking.... being fired from a job at some point in their lives.
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 4:54pm
4) the armpit of ontario.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 4:42pm
Now, now, now....I hear Windsor has some quite nice strip clubs!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 4:55pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 4:55pm
yes, and unfortunately these clubs are the only way many girls can afford to go to university.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:57pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 4:54pm
i know it's dumb-silly-assed utopian,
but how about a YOU (not you specifically, mask) society.
payforward works way better that payback (just ask my karma--oops just messed that up--best not to talk about one's karma)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 5:00pm
For a little more perspective on this poverty thing...(From a recent Investor's Business Daily)
It probably won't get much play (seeing that it happened on George Bush's watch), but it's worth noting nonetheless: The U.S. poverty rate dropped from 12.6% in 2005 to 12.3% in 2006. (The 12.3%, by the way, is below the 12.9% average under President Clinton, but you probably won't see that mentioned much either.)
Just two years ago, the media were full of stories about how poverty had risen in America despite a global economic boom. This, it was repeatedly suggested, showed that the U.S. suffered from gross economic inequality -- capitalism's cardinal sin.
Which, of course, was utter nonsense. By any real measure, Americans -- including the poor -- are better off than the rest of the world. Moreover, the poverty data capture only one aspect of our economic existence: income. Study after study shows that Americans routinely consume well above their incomes, thanks in large part to government subsidies, aid, pensions and outright welfare.
Thus, when we say that someone is "poor," we have to define what that means. Technically, a person is poor if he or she had cash income in 2006 of less than $10,294; for a family of four, it was $20,614. Not much. But as we said, income isn't everything.
The problem begins when people confuse the government's official definition of "poverty" with "standard of living." It's the latter that matters, even for the so-called poor.
"Poor" households in America own an awful lot of stuff. Nearly 43% own their own homes, 73% own cars or trucks, 80% have air conditioning, 99% have refrigerators, 64% own washer, 57% own dryers, 97% have color TV sets (more than half have two), 78% own VCR or DVD players, and over a third have personal computers.
What's more, things have gotten better over time -- regardless of what the poverty rate shows. In 1973, the year that official data show had the lowest poverty rate ever at 11.1%, one of every 12 low-income children was considered underweight; today, there are virtually no underweight children. Indeed, among rich and poor alike, obesity -- a disease of affluence -- is the bigger worry.
As for housing, in 1970 more than a quarter of poor households lived in "crowded" conditions (defined as more than one person per room). Today, it's below 6%.
OK, you say. But 47 million people don't have health insurance. Surely, they must be sicker than ever. Not quite. As demographer Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute notes, the U.S. infant mortality rate has fallen 70% since the mid-1960s, and "children in poor families are more likely today to have an annual medical visit or checkup with a doctor than even non-poor children just 20 years ago."
For all Americans, access to medical care has steadily increased -- whether they have insurance or not. (Incidentally, government data show 21% of all uninsured have incomes above $50,000, which is higher than the U.S. median of $48,000.)
In 1973, the poorest fifth of the population consumed roughly 40% more than they reported in income. In 2004, the percentage was 95%. In other words, a family of four reporting an income at the poverty threshold of $20,000 now consumes nearly $40,000.
How can you consume more than you earn? One way is to earn more than you report. In 2001 alone, the U.S. government estimated that $804 billion of personal income wasn't reported. And the poverty measure doesn't count EITC payments or non-cash welfare, such as food stamps and housing vouchers.
Yes, too many people are still poor. But the fact is, the gains that have been made are gigantic. If America's poor were to form their own country, they would be in the top 5% of the world's income distribution, according to World Bank data.
In short, America is a country of extraordinary abundance -- no matter how you measure it.
Posted by usc1 at 09/04/2007 @ 5:04pm
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 4:54pm
So, the Nazis and the Soviets represent your impression of a "we" society. I would submit that the original goal of democracy is the "we" society to which I refer, and it's a work in progress that's gone off course. History points to a trashcan of failures when ideals are perverted for personal gain, but we learn its lessons to try and improve, not concede cynically, or re-live its tragedies.
Democracy -- what does it really mean to each of us, if we could help to shape a direction for the future?
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/04/2007 @ 5:10pm
yep, fjordman said it. it's gotta be true.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 4:28pm
Unlike the Libs in America, this writer Fjordman, is a Scandanavian and lives in Norway....so, unless proven otherwise, his opinion carry more weight than anyone on this board, NO?
Sort of like.....YOU....living in Canada and we who aren't, won't challenge your views of Canada unless we spend a great deal of effort (which we won't exert), NO? Notice how just like LRJones, neither of your views on your respective country's `situations' are ever `debated'....you get FREE RIDES...nice, huh?
Posted by Happy at 09/04/2007 @ 5:38pm
Posted by HA 09/04/2007 @ 4:14p
Really liked the 'via vanity sans sanity' twisty of the article. But then if utopia is overrun by non-utopians is it the utopian form of gov at fault or is it the non-utopians doing the faulting... ergo nonutopians need to become more utopian than non.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/04/2007 @ 6:11pm
JOR,
"Yeah, private expertise... you mean the way Iraq is being run?
And here, I thought the Bush Administration was supposed to be the CEO Administration. The sad thing is, it really is. What's even more sad is, people like you don't get it, just how bad it is for the country.
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/04/2007 @ 1:27"
Who said anything about letting the govt run anything? I would let the govt pay for the schools system and let private enterprise provide the model...run it with accountability..copy the system..
I wouldn't let the govt run anything, you want to use Iraq as an example, so be it...I wouldn't let these guys run it any more than the dems running it..
and that is precisely why I don't want the same people or system near my health care...you apparently feel fine about it, which makes you a fool in my mind...you can change the players, but the same system will run it...
Posted by john maasch at 09/04/2007 @ 8:04pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 4:42pm
...I hear Windsor has some quite nice strip clubs!
Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 4:55pm
On a gorgeous summer day, looking from the "armpit of Ontario" NORTH across the Detroit River, Detroit looks rather impressive....with the Portman-designed GM HQ all shimmering......
Too bad I was w/family on vacation passing through Windsor.......
But, Frosty, tell me how did you like `playing' at Club-TZer or The TT Bar?
Posted by Happy at 09/04/2007 @ 9:58pm
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 5:04pm
Sobering statistics....
Posted by john maasch at 09/04/2007 @ 10:02pm
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 5:04pm
Sobering statistics....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/04/2007 @ 10:02pm
I saw almost the exact same numbers in a letter to the editor in our local paper just yesterday. The person wrote in because the paper failed to mention those stats. Predictable.
On a personal note, I had a first about 3 weeks ago. While pumping gas, I had a panhandler approach me trolling for cash. I would have given him some had he not had a CELL PHONE in his hand. My...how far we've come.
Posted by Sliver at 09/04/2007 @ 10:15pm
But, Frosty, tell me how did you like `playing' at Club-TZer or The TT Bar?
Posted by HAPPY 09/04/2007 @ 9:58pm
those places are dumps (i think it's the same place, actually) located in what was once a prosperous part of the city. the neighbourhood was called "ford city" due to mr. ford's huge presence here. well the factories and foundry are almost all shuttered up now. the neighbourhood is now home to crack dealers (not much meth yet, thank god) and hookers, boarded up houses and vacant lots. it would be a familiar sight to any of you who have visited detroit, st. louis, philly, d.c., etc.,
my city's blue-collar past has left it stranded in the eyes of the federal and provincial governments and crime is on the rise.
at least we don't have the guns that toronto (yes toronto--not to far from the u.s., where they're easy to get) has (yet).
i see so many people suffering (a relative term--i'd rather be unemployed in canada than living with an aids epidemic in drought-ravaged kenya) so a few people can buy huge mansions and golf at night.
sure it's cheaper to make stuff in china. but when their wages go up (soon, most of the population is still not educated enough to work in factories) then the factories will close there and move to nigeria, for example. and so on. and so on.
maybe they'll come back here one day after wages have gone down to 10¢ a week
this world of every man (sorry ladies, i didn't invent english, i'm just one of its victims) for himself distresses me so.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 10:39pm
JM/Sliver
Don't you just hate it when the facts don't back up the democrat talking points? KVH must be crying in her '95 Clos du Mesnil.
Posted by usc1 at 09/04/2007 @ 10:40pm
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 10:40pm |
When it comes to "free" shit, it's never enough.
But encouraging dependency creates faithful voting blocks.
While I'll side with the leftists on here that, YES, CEO's are overpaid, but here's the catch....who is stopping ANYONE from being a CEO?
Posted by Sliver at 09/04/2007 @ 11:05pm
...or from finishing high school?
...or from aborting that unwanted teen pregnancy?
...or from marrying into money?
...or from starting their own business?
...or from buying health insurance?
...or from saving what they earn? (actually, that one is a trick question...hehe)
Posted by Sliver at 09/04/2007 @ 11:08pm
who is stopping ANYONE from being a CEO?
Posted by SLIVER 09/04/2007 @ 11:05pm
the CEOs themselves. not too easy to rise to the top if your a minority. quite an exclusive club.
and if poverty is finished in america (which it isn't--reservations, appalachia, inner cities) then why not help people in africa or asia or south america?
if you can spend $500 billion destroying iraq, why not give each friggin' person ($500,000,000,000/7,000,000,000 people) $71.43.
for most people on the planet that would change their lives.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 11:25pm
"Happy," your argument that the Scandinavian countries are horrible totalitarian societies is pathetic. What percentage of Scandinavians would agree with "Fjordman" that his country is a communist gulag -- if indeed this "Fjordman" fellow really exists?
And as for the liberals' alleged lack of facts: Do you suppose that the US Conference of Mayors Task Force on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, Catholic Charities, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs -- which KvdH cites -- are all liars? Don't complain to me that they are liberals. Are they liars? What myths are these groups guilty of spreading? Don't whine that they're biased. Show me where they're lying. If you can!
If it were really true that anti-poverty programs caused intergenerational dependency, then there would be worse intergenerational dependency in Europe than here, because the Europeans have more generous welfare systems than we do. But the reverse is the case. Explain that!
I have two comments about "John Maasch's" contributions. He says first that we need "less social engineering and more engineering." Would Mr. "Maasch" prefer anti-social engineering? And please, Mr. "Maasch," you can't seriously believe that transforming schools into for-profit corporations will make them better. Children are not widgets. There is no "efficient" way to educate them. The only "innovation" that really works is to increase the teacher-to-student ratio, and since this idea is really as old as the hills, it's not really an innovation. But it's the only thing that works. The reason home schooling seems to work so wonderfully is that you generally can't beat the teacher-to-student ratio in a home school (which averages one teacher for every 2.5 students). And the reason private schools seem to work so well is they cherry-pick their students and leave the "problem learners" to the public schools.
Which brings me to my second comment. "John Maasch" has only contempt for the notion that schools should provide "babysitting" and free lunches. But this is an extremely important social contribution, considering that in many working families both parents must earn income outside the home during the day. Where are these working parents supposed to leave their children while they are both at work? Just as most parents do not have the time to homeschool their children, they also cannot spare anyone at home to take care of them. I believe "workfare" made sure of that.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2007 @ 11:41pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/04/2007 @ 11:41pm
five-star post mr. jakobfabian!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 11:49pm
"Happy," your argument that the Scandinavian countries are horrible totalitarian societies is pathetic.....
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/04/2007 @ 11:41pm
Hold on to your knees there, JAKO, they are jerking way, way too hard....I can almost feel it!
All I did was to present an article by one Norwegian writer on his observations of the changes taking place in Sweden while pointing out the `old Sweden', the `model' social democracy cited by the American Left, is on the way out....
I did NOT argue....go back and re-read!
However, I am well read enough to know that many of the developed Europe's social democracies are undergoing transformations (some call it Reaganomics 2.0)....France and Germany in particular while Eastern Europe are diving directly into 2.0 w/out going though Old Europe's social welfare model! These MegaTrends are facts and no arguments are necessary!
What the Left wants is to emulate an economic and heavily socialistic model that is no longer suitable for the world today! To call socialism "Totalitarian" maybe offensive to Libs' senses but would "Compassionate Totalitarianism" be better for your `sensitive' ears? John Edward gave you a good preview in so far as healthcare is concerned!
Posted by Happy at 09/05/2007 @ 12:06am
Posted by HAPPY 09/05/2007 @ 12:06am
The fear is palpable.
Posted by canaar at 09/05/2007 @ 12:43am
Jak,
"He says first that we need "less social engineering and more engineering." Would Mr. "Maasch" prefer anti-social engineering? "
We alrewady have antoi social engeneering...what I meant was to focus on engeneering as studies, with sciemces and not focus on the social engeneering...worrying about "offending sensibilitys" of groups. Learning is the mission, not self esteem clinics..2+2=4....you get no points for trying...you get points for arriving at the correct answer and the understanding how to arrive at it.
"And please, Mr. "Maasch," you can't seriously believe that transforming schools into for-profit corporations will make them better. Children are not widgets. There is no "efficient" way to educate them. "
No, I don't, only mimick the model of the corporate world by establishing pay scales related to results and bonus structure with innovations...and there can be efficient ways to educate..
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 02:34am
Anything is better than the union heavy top sided miss managed system we have today that is held accountable to no one standard or results, or even the tax payer...just volume and retirement plans with bennies...herding cattle.Our bottom line is the children are the ones getting screwed in the short run and the nation in the long run.
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 02:37am
who is stopping ANYONE from being a CEO?
Posted by SLIVER 09/04/2007 @ 11:05pm
the CEOs themselves. not too easy to rise to the top if your a minority. quite an exclusive club.
and if poverty is finished in america (which it isn't--reservations, appalachia, inner cities) then why not help people in africa or asia or south america?
if you can spend $500 billion destroying iraq, why not give each friggin' person ($500,000,000,000/7,000,000,000 people) $71.43.
for most people on the planet that would change their lives.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 11:25pm
Sorry, Frosty...for less than the price of a pair of Air Jordan's, anyone can incorporate in just about any state.
As far as aid to other countries, we were the #1 donor of foreign aid to Afghanistan prior to 9/11, and you see where that got us. I prefer Reagan's view of "Trust, but verify" to idealistic, un-bridled world welfare.
Posted by Sliver at 09/05/2007 @ 07:13am
Posted by SLIVER 09/05/2007 @ 07:13am
read this interview [tinyurl.com] to get a better perspective about "aid"
i highly recommend the book.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 08:06am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/05/2007 @ 02:37am | ignore this person
while it seems like a good idea to pay teachers according to performance, ¿how does one gage their performance?
Standardized tests you say.
well teachers tend to teach the test anyway, with the result being that children memorize the test and learn nothing. so if their pay is linked to test performance, TEACH THE TEST.
graduation rates--pass 'em all
what happens if a teacher gets a particularly dumb (or lazy, or jaded, or angst-ridden) group of kids?--¿his mortgage payment don't get made?
teachers already work at least 20 hours a week preparing classes and checking work and exams, all unpaid.
SCHOOL FUNDING--ay, there's the rub
funding schools with local property taxes is insane and very, very unjust.
song:
i was born in the hamptons
got a silver spoon
go to school in a lexus
come home by balloon
my class's got a satellite,
computers in the can.
we rent our football squad
from an NFLin' man.
___________________________
i was born in flint, oh yeah
go to school underground.
we got ourselves a bunker,
army salvage, best around.
we ain't got no books
and we ain't got no chalk.
we ain't got no hope
my next class is in iraq
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 08:31am
Most our companys have to teach basic fundementals to graduates they hire...crapp that should have been learned in high school..Iraq, when it ends, will not result in our schools improving..the entire education system in the US needs to be scrapped and scraped..from the unions down to the buildings..
if our education system were a patient in a hospital, it would have been declared dead decades ago.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/04/2007 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person
this is all nonsense. in my Burg test scores have gone up.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 08:42am
I still can't understand the left's desire for greater government influence over our lives. Our survival depends on quite the opposite.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/04/2007 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person
yes, let's just get rid of gov't. whatta fool you are, Frei. don't you get tired peddling this nonsense?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 08:47am
Posted by SLIVER 09/05/2007 @ 07:13am
I liked Reagan's "trust but verify" too.
Can we apply that to Bush and Cheney's assessments of Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 09/05/2007 @ 08:48am
I still can't understand the left's desire for greater government influence over our lives.
how exactly is this manifested?
Our survival depends on quite the opposite.
how so? what part of gov't are you willing to live without?
with you it's all fantasy. you never have anything tangible to offer, just stale rhetoric. tiresome, stale rhetoric.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/04/2007 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 09:01am
What? There are poor people in America? I thought the market was supposed to take care of everything?
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/05/2007 @ 09:16am
teachers already work at least 20 hours a week preparing classes and checking work and exams, all unpaid.
Really?? All of them? My son had a teacher 2 years ago that never even entered her classroom until the day that school started. Since she also felt that preparation was "unpaid", she never bothered to do it.
Your argument would hold if teachers were paid hourly, but they're not. I'm sure the teachers union doesn't want to see teachers pay broken down hourly, because they'd realize how good they have it.
Since we're talking about teachers not getting paid for work outside the classroom, then would it be safe to say that those checks rolling in all summer and during the 20 or so personal/vacation days that they receive every year are a bonus/charity, or what?
Posted by Sliver at 09/05/2007 @ 09:21am
Since we're talking about teachers not getting paid for work outside the classroom, then would it be safe to say that those checks rolling in all summer and during the 20 or so personal/vacation days that they receive every year are a bonus/charity, or what?
Posted by SLIVER
So you're proposing that teachers not be paid for the summer break? How many teachers do you think would be able to afford working only nine months a year?
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/05/2007 @ 09:55am
And speaking of the market: Higher wages should attract better teachers, if it works like it's supposed to. All this talk of the teachers unions is nothing but a bunch of smoke.
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/05/2007 @ 10:00am
Plutocracy versus Socialism
Ever increasing populations, decreasing natural resources and economic globalization are setting the stage for perpetual war, pestilence and famine and capitalism is fanning the flames. In the short run, our plutocrats will benefit from all of the above, but eventually they too will suffer the consequences of their actions. Naturally, poor and middleclass Americans will be sacrificed first and most because that's what our system was designed to do. The powerful always prey on the weak. That's the irrefutable history of the human race.
Americans don't question the system because we've been conditioned to believe that this is the natural order of things. How do we know? because they tell us so every day of our lives. To this day, a majority of Americans believe that we have a democratic form of government, but we don't and never did. We have always been ruled by powerful sociopaths. In fact, that's also the irrefutable history of the human race.
How have the cunning and powerful few managed to fool the billions of people who have lived an died under this system for thousands of years? The answer is human nature, and how they have defined it for us. They say: "The masses are irrational brutes incapable of self-governance, and we protect you from one another because you can't." But doesn't that seem like an extremely dubious assertion when you consider that democracy has never been allowed to get off the ground. If it's never been tried, how can democracy be called a failure?
Because they tell us so, every day of our lives.
But still, this system hasn't and isn't working for the good of billions of people, and that is growing more apparent every day. War, pestilence and famine are increasing everywhere, and will continue to increase unless we change the system. They've had more than enough time to prove their point, but they've failed to protect us from one another, and in fact they have pitted us one against the another. Cooperation they say is the problem, and competition is the solution. Survival of the fittest, and all that. With a bible in one hand and sword in the other, they command us to go forth and conquer for the good of the system.
Their failed plutocratic system.
Socialism is evil, or so they say, and millions of Americans believe it. But since neither democracy or socialism has ever been tried in America, how can we be sure?
Are you willing to try something they've describe as evil, after considering their track record?
They tremble at the thought that we will. .
Posted by rabblerowzer at 09/05/2007 @ 10:34am
They say: "The masses are irrational brutes incapable of self-governance, and we protect you from one another because you can't."----Posted by RABBLEROWZER 09/05/2007 @ 10:34am
Excuse me RABBLE, but I think it's the LEFT (i.e. socialists and friends) who say that as much or MORE than the Right.
After all, the central premise of socialism is that people are greedy and given a rise in capitalism, will use their money and power like "irrational brutes" to exploit and dominate their fellow man. And that we need The State (run by folks such as yourself of course) to "protect us from one another because we can't."
Posted by Mask at 09/05/2007 @ 11:00am
Because they tell us so, every day of our lives.
hey RABBLEROWZER. you didn't strike me as the kind of person that watches fox "news"
:o[
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 11:01am
USC1
It probably won't get much play (seeing that it happened on George Bush's watch), but it's worth noting nonetheless: The U.S. poverty rate dropped from 12.6% in 2005 to 12.3% in 2006. (The 12.3%, by the way, is below the 12.9% average under President Clinton, but you probably won't see that mentioned much either.)
You won't see it mentioned that way because it's misleading. The point is to measure trends. The poverty rate according in '94 was 15.1%, in 2000 it was down to 11.3%. The decline to 12.3% in 2006 still means that it's gone higher under Bush's stewardship.
Study after study shows that Americans routinely consume well above their incomes, thanks in large part to government subsidies, aid, pensions and outright welfare.
In short, a percentage of Americans still need government aid to get by.
there are virtually no underweight children. Indeed, among rich and poor alike, obesity -- a disease of affluence -- is the bigger worry.
Actually, obesity among the poor isn't a disease of affluence but of only being able to afford cheaper fast foods, less education, etc. As art icle [sciencedaily.com] pointed out, "It's a question of money," Drewnowski said. "'The reason healthier diets are beyond the reach of many people is that such diets cost more. On a per calorie basis, diets composed of whole grains, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit are far more expensive than refined grains, added sugars and added fats. It's not a question of being sensible or silly when it comes to food choices, it's about being limited to those foods that you can afford.'"
Posted by brunowe at 09/05/2007 @ 11:26am
Your argument would hold if teachers were paid hourly, but they're not. I'm sure the teachers union doesn't want to see teachers pay broken down hourly, because they'd realize how good they have it.
yes, the teachers have it real good. it's those CEOs that are suffering. whattaloadofcrap, Sliver.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 11:31am
"JM/Sliver
Don't you just hate it when the facts don't back up the democrat talking points? KVH must be crying in her '95 Clos du Mesnil.
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 10:40pm
You get used to it..
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 11:31am
Actually, obesity among the poor isn't a disease of affluence but of only being able to afford cheaper fast foods,...
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/05/2007 @ 11:26am
Without going to read via your link, the claim of fast food as being cheaper is absurd!
Use common sense (something the Left is genetically deficient in).....what would it cost per avg. person per day to buy 3 meals of fast food per day? Say $10 minimum! Add in the indirect cost of driving/gas/car-maintenance (yeh, some walk) and it's hard to see total cost of less than $10~$15 per person per day. Those of us that eat a large majority of meals at home, and not Frequent Shoppers at Whole Foods, can easily feed the family for less....and get to eat more and healthier! The `problem' is, food preparation and coming up w/menus take time, thus NOT fast! Another `problem' is simply how much do the heads of household CARE about their own, and more importantly, their dependents' eating habits!!!
Ironic, those with lots of time, the poor, aren't willing to spend the time to save money....instead, watch far too much TV (studies have shown lower socio-economics group tend to watch more TV.....typical non-news/sports programming is a dead giveaway) while getting fatter which in turn, means increasing need for food, heavily fast-natured food!
Posted by Happy at 09/05/2007 @ 11:46am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/05/2007 @ 02:37am | ignore this person
while it seems like a good idea to pay teachers according to performance, ¿how does one gage their performance"
I would eliminate the grade level system and teach according to abilitys..should a student demostrate an ability in math then he/she moves forward at a faster rate to newer or more complicated material...a test is required in any system..when you are hired for a job you are put to the test to see if you are as capable as you and your resume' claim..as the teacher recognises the ability, more money for them..
I think standardized tests are a fine measure for understanding the material presented, but useless if given as a grade level measure...some students will understand algerbra in 9th grade and others in the 12th grade...proficiency would be determined by how one did on the test, the same test, regardless of "grade level"...lose the grade level and all you measure is proficiency,which to my mind, is the goal. With no grade level yard stick the stigma of "failing to get the material at the same time as others is removed", and thus no threat to the self esteem issue so many are worried about.
I would eliminate the time factor in testing and learning...some students learn a subject in 2 days and others take 2 weeks to learn the same subject..there would be no distinction in proficiency in learning based on time it took to learn a subject...same for tests..if one student takes a test in 2 hours and another it takes 1 hour,so what?,....the measure is how they answered the questions and if they were answered correctly..the measure of understanding the material..not the fastest to complete the test.
The ability to recognise the level at which students learn and then to adapt the subjects to those students would be a reason for reward.
The goal is for all to leave the school system with proficiency, not for the them to be herded through at a rate that doesn't effect federal funding levels or teacher pension plans..
Higher proficiency rates and incentive teaching methods are worthy of higher pay...And pay rates would be modeled after the private sector...it wouldn't matter how long you were at your job, but rather how well you performed...sometimes it doesn't matter how much one wanted to be a teacher, you may not be good at the whole concept...I have friends who wanted to be a pilot, learned to mechanicaly fly the plane, but I wouldn't say he was a pilot...he had no natural ability to become what a pilot is...he only knew how to fly..which is not enough, IMO.
Same for teaching..
As for JRs burg and improved scores..scores measured for doing what? Passing a test to move forward..I believe they were taught to the test..not to abilitys or proficiency...all in order to maintain federal funds.
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 12:09pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/05/2007 @ 11:26am
well, i think the choice of food is more about education (and indoctrination) than price, especially during summer months.
rice and beans are real cheap.
tomatoes $4/bushel (right now) (cdn dollars--soon to be at par :+]
apples are always cheap
the problem is that people feel they need meat. even if it's "meat" like hot dogs or cold cuts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 12:12pm
HAPPY
In short, instead of actually going to read the argument, you're simply making statements based on your say so. Here's a sidebar in a LA survey that pointed out that "Stretching Food Dollars: Many lower income, food insecure households may resort to consuming lower cost foods that are typically lower in nutritional quality and contain higher levels of calories per dollar (e.g., affordable fast-foods for convenience with increased portion size). Research indicates that the quality or variety of food consumed is often compromised before the quantity of food eaten
Food Availability: Meats, fish, fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains are often limited in impoverished neighborhoods, and when available the variety and the quality of items tend to be significantly lower.11,12 This lack of access to a variety of healthy foods limits the ability to make healthy choices."
Mike Huckabee, hardly a leftist, mentioned [msnbc.msn.com] another reason for the tie-in "Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- a self-described "recovering foodaholic" who lost 110 pounds and tried to put his entire state on a wellness plan -- explained during a Southern Governors' Association meeting last weekend that there are historical reasons poor people often fry their foods: It's an inexpensive way to increase the calories and feed a family."
Fattening food, in general, is cheaper than healthy food. I shouldn't have limited the scope of my statement to fast food, but the basic point that obesity is a disease of poverty and not affluence still goes.
Posted by brunowe at 09/05/2007 @ 12:17pm
FROSTY
well, i think the choice of food is more about education (and indoctrination) than price, especially during summer months.
Assuming that such alternatives are readily available in poorer neighborhoods.
Posted by brunowe at 09/05/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/05/2007 @ 11:46am
actually HAPPY i just cooked:
pasta/with tomato/red pepper sauce (from scratch)
white beans (from a can) with corn niblets (fresh)
steamed swiss chard (what's that?--fresh)
sliced cucumber with (mexican) lime
and a big juicy cantaloupe for dessert
80% local--100% delicious--total cost for 3 people = 9 dollars
plus i've got leftover pasta
total prep time 20 minutes
le voila!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 12:21pm
how many clueless ones on one thread?
poor people cannot afford to buy food in bulk.
poor people are brainwashed by the fast food industry.
poor people don't have access to fresh food, farmer's markets don't usually set up in poor neighborhoods.
and of course it's all their fault for being poor.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 12:26pm
FROSTY
As the studies pointed out, it's a questions of $/calorie. Foods that offer more of those for the buck are generally not the healthier foods.
Posted by brunowe at 09/05/2007 @ 12:30pm
Can I just ask a question....
what is the plan that is going to get "farmer's markets to open in poor neighborhoods"?
Posted by Mask at 09/05/2007 @ 12:33pm
Assuming that such alternatives are readily available in poorer neighborhoods.
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/05/2007 @ 12:20pm
this is a good point. it didn't used to be that way in your country. it wasn't that long ago when you could only buy fresh stuff from a local retailer.
now it's SUPER-MEGA-FAST'N'READY-PHOODMART.
a trip to any "poor" country and one of the first things you see is people selling fresh food on almost every street.
progress.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 12:55pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/05/2007 @ 12:30pm
kcal/$
what you say is true.
i guess i am just as dismayed by what most "rich" people consider "food"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 12:58pm
"poor people are brainwashed by the fast food industry.
All people are brainwashed by fast food industry,but some thought process of the individual should come into play somewhere...
It is not a natural state of man(or a man) to eat a meal with a steering wheel in front of him or traveling ar 50 mph...
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 1:18pm
"what is the plan that is going to get "farmer's markets to open in poor neighborhoods"?
Posted by MASK 09/05/2007 @ 12:33pm
Why, a govt program of course, where by, the food is subsidised(by those who had their taxes cut and stole that money from the poor in the first place, not to mention the govt)and the market could be set up in a park..
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 1:21pm
BRUNOWE,
Not sure I agree that obesity is a disease of the poor. I heard the observation once that "poor people have poor choices" although I've seen a fair amount of fat middle and upper middle class people who are just too lazy to take care of themselves or their kids.
Add to that a public school system that pays much less attention to physical fitness for children then it did when I was a kid.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/05/2007 @ 1:31pm
Brunowe
I think the author's point was that you ain't gonna find too many fat people in Ethiopia. Obesity is a problem that exists mainly in affluent countries.
"Poverty", as most people I would hope have figured out, is a relative term. What's considered poor in our country is actually pretty damn wealthy compared to the rest of the world, as his statistics show. Unfortunately, when many Americans think of "poor people", they think of little children with swollen bellies, flies landing on their lips, and Sally Struthers begging for donations. That simply isn't the case in this country. What exists in America is not so much a difference between the "haves" and "have nots", but the "haves" and "have mores."
This is the problem with the war on poverty in America. It won't ever be won because liberals will continue to move the goal posts. (So what if over half of the "poor" have cable or satelite TV...little Johnny needs us to pay for his school lunch. We don't care if 40% of the "poor" have cell phones, we need to start paying for little Johnny's breakfast, too.) It will never end. Don't you ever question just where exactly the money goes when the "poor" can afford to buy 1 (or 2) cars, cable programming, TV, DVD/VCR, brand name clothes,etc, but somehow can't afford to buy peanut butter and jelly? Oops. I think I just answered my own question.
Posted by usc1 at 09/05/2007 @ 1:41pm
Posted by USC1 09/05/2007 @ 1:41pm
Exactly...and don't forget $ 150 Air Jordans through out the land, ghettos and gate communitys...
I guess American poverty is an incentive to come to the Us from other poor countrys? I know I would rather life poor here than the average life in say, Ethiopia or, dare I say...Cuba?
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 1:45pm
BTW,nobody quote me on those last statistics ("40% have cell phones"). I was using them as examples, nothing more.
Posted by usc1 at 09/05/2007 @ 1:46pm
Cuba--if that's paradise...no thanks.
Posted by usc1 at 09/05/2007 @ 1:47pm
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 5:04pm
How about a little perspective on these "sobering statistics"? They were worked up by the well-known Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector. Remember, this is a guy who's been literally stormed in his office by the poor themselves, enraged by his dishonest arguments to belittle their plight. Here's a link to a nice blog post by a disabled veteran living under the poverty line, in response to Mr. Rector's study: Class Warfare - Making Sure The Wealthy Get Their Share, And Yours Too [blog.thedemocraticdaily.com].
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/05/2007 @ 1:49pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/05/2007
dum da dum dum
poor america--guns, drugs, bad schools, no doctor
poor cuba--low crime, no drugs, good schools, free medical care.
there's good and bad everywhere
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 2:31pm
John M, USC, HAPPENSTANCE
i think y'all need to get in a student exchange program to see what you're talking about.
John you're going to Stinking Creek Tennessee.
USC we'll send you to Flint, Michigan (good luck)
Happy you're going to the Crow Creek Dakota Reservation.
i think a year living in these people's shoes should fix ya'.
hey, we could make this a new reality series "Rich Butts Gone Broke"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 2:40pm
poor cuba--low crime, no drugs, good schools, free medical care.
there's good and bad everywhere
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/05/2007 @ 2:31pm
Yup, no electricity, no freedom, no travel, no independent activitys, no elections, no dissent, no free enterprise, nocash, no consumer products made, no exports, no expectations of betterment, no free speech, no free pres....ah, but "free health care"...BTW, who does pay for Cubas health care?
So many no's that I can't waste the time...
There is no free lunch...please, give me a break.
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 2:41pm
John M, USC, HAPPENSTANCE
i think y'all need to get in a student exchange program to see what you're talking about.
John you're going to Stinking Creek Tennessee.
USC we'll send you to Flint, Michigan (good luck)
Happy you're going to the Crow Creek Dakota Reservation.
i think a year living in these people's shoes should fix ya'.
hey, we could make this a new reality series "Rich Butts Gone Broke"
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/05/2007 @ 2:40pm
1. I 've been to Tennessee and seen the poverty and have seen it change...
2. I have been to Flint many times and have seen the changes..I'd rather be in Flint that Havanna..
3. I have been on many Indian resevations through out N Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin...my sister in law is Arapahoe..
The casinos are a nice "payback"...many tribe menbers make more money than you will ever see...time has a way of leveling out most fields..
I have and am a paticipant in an exchange program..my daughter is leaving for Japan next month..
I travel the world and will not trade the US, our life style, our society, our shitty govt, our food, our jobs system, our health care nor anything else for anywhere else I have traveled..
For me, the glass is ALWAYS half full...and the problem in not America.
AND, I think we should buy Mexico..it would be better and cheaper for all involved compared to what they have now and what we are getting now.
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 2:49pm
JM:
LOL. Beat me to the punch. Something tells me that even with all his equivocating, Frosty won't move to a third world country.
BTW, Frosty, where did Fidel get his health care from when he was "near death?" Hint...it didn't come from Cuba. Why not? Apparently all the good doctors fled the country when they had the chance (as part of Fidel's good will gesture to Latin America).
Posted by usc1 at 09/05/2007 @ 2:59pm
Posted by USC1 09/05/2007 @ 2:59pm
Ahhh,...
EXACTLY...(in the voice of the King...Elvis)
Posted by john maasch at 09/05/2007 @ 3:06pm
HAPPY
In short, instead of actually going to read the argument, you're simply making statements based on your say so.
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/05/2007 @ 12:17pm
My "say so" is based on accumulated knowledge and first-person experiences of having dealt with lots of low/moderate income families through almost 30 years of being a landlord. At my `peak', I owned more than a dozen properties....and I have had Section 8 Tenants on at least 10 occasions. Unlike all or most of you, I have had actual relationships and first-hand close-up observations of Houston's `poor'!
As a landlord to overwhelmingly the lower two quintiles, a few images have stayed in my mind. One of those `burned-in' images came about 10~12 years ago when big screen TV's (the bulky ones) were just starting to become mass market. This black family lived in the very first house my wife and I first lived in.
The matriarch (worked part-time somewhere) had the Fed's Sec. 8 paying all but perhaps $30 of the monthly rent. She shared my house w/an adult non-working daughter plus a couple of kids, one of them was the daughters'. You guessed it, they had a big-screen TV that I, even today, don't have one...though we do have 4 regular TVs scattered around the house! By all appearances--and no, my houses don't look like dumps--they were lower-middle class and had two cars. This family stayed w/me for 2~3 years and then, using the same Sec. 8 program, moved to a 4 bedroom house after another kid was born....don't remember if that was the mother or adult daughter....
There are other `stories' of my `poor' tenants driving quite respectable nice new cars! There is no question America's Poor `consumes' far, far more than what statistics falsely imply!
Posted by Happy at 09/05/2007 @ 3:10pm
BTW,nobody quote me on those last statistics ("40% have cell phones"). I was using them as examples, nothing more.
Posted by USC1 09/05/2007 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person
don't worry. you are so full of shit no one would quote you.
get a grip people. there are more poor people in this country since Bush was handed power
all you creeps who try to argue away the pain of poverty, take your family to the shelter and the soup kitchen. you wouldn't last a day.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 3:59pm
Frosty won't move to a third world country.
Posted by USC1 09/05/2007 @ 2:59pm
wrong-o-rama
lived in mexico for 10 years.
i miss it every day.
to answer your next question--mom was very sick
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 4:01pm
yes, I am disgusted with a bunch of comfortable keyboard warriors dumping on poor people in this country. you people are gross, and you make me wanna puke.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2007 @ 4:04pm
JOHN, Frosty is probably right about one thing. Cuba's schools probably ARE better than what passes as a Public School today, at least in my area.
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/05/2007 @ 4:24pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/05/2007 @ 1:21pm
Think a "Federal Farmer's Market" will be like the old GUM Department Store in Moscow in the 70s....
or more like a WIC office in Compton or Bed-Sty in the 70s?
Posted by Mask at 09/05/2007 @ 4:26pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/05/2007 @ 4:04pm
See, if you disagree with Professor ROLF's view on poverty, it shows you hate poor people!
Duh!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/05/2007 @ 4:27pm
I am disgusted with a bunch of comfortable keyboard warriors dumping on poor people in this country. you people are gross, and you make me wanna puke.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/05/2007 @ 4:04pm
Now that you're through puking....here's your chance to tell the board what you do to help out the poor...and no, keybaord advocating for 90% tax rates on the filthy rich don't count! IF you do nothing more than donating a few bucks to the United Way of NY or the Salvation Army at around X'mas, go ahead and lie!
Posted by Happy at 09/05/2007 @ 5:03pm
yes, the teachers have it real good. it's those CEOs that are suffering. whattaloadofcrap, Sliver.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/05/2007 @ 11:31am
Lefties are sooooooo predictable. Compare a teacher's salary to LeBron or Bill Gates....but never Paco the dishwasher.
OK, Braniac...spell out what a teacher who makes $50k annually would make hourly. (You may have to take off your shoes).
Posted by Sliver at 09/05/2007 @ 6:12pm
JOHANNESROLF:
At my church in Pittsburgh, we have a homeless shelter in the basement. In the past 4-5 years the number of people being serviced by that shelter, according to the members who run it, has essentially doubled. Now, part of that number is due to the fact that it is one of the few shelters in the immediate vicinity, but a large portion of that number is due to vast economic hardship. So, yeah, you're absolutely correct.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/05/2007 @ 10:20pm
lived in mexico for 10 years.
and yet you didn't stay. I wonder why that was.
Posted by usc1 at 09/05/2007 @ 10:27pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/05/2007 @ 3:38pm
thanks for the intelligent part.
perkins is a bad writer, no doubt.
is he exaggerating his part in all this?--no doubt.
plausibility of these actions. better.
look at what "aid" has produced. useless infrastructure built by u.s. firms. despots made more powerful. poor people left to wallow in environmental degradation.
since no other insider has written an exposé that i know of, it's the best we've got.
no, i don't think there's an implicit conspiracy. but greed, that exists in staggering quantities.
and the factual parts of the book--cia intervention in iran, guatemala, panamá--are just the tip of the ice-berg.
and to show you i'm not anti-american but anti-greed, check out this map [halifaxinitiative.org] of all the fun things canadian mining companies are doing around the world.
makes me proud. :o{
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2007 @ 11:54pm
and yet you didn't stay. I wonder why that was.
Posted by USC1 09/05/2007 @ 10:27pm
to answer your next question--mom was very sick
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/05/2007 @ 4:01pm
i knew this question was coming, so i had already answered it.
my mom passed away a few years ago, but by that time my wife had entered university and my son had started school so we made a very difficult decision to stay in canada.
like i said, i miss mexico very, very much. i miss my friends, my in-laws, futból, the food, the music, the land, the sea
my standard of living is exactly the same here as it was in mexico.
happiness does not have a price tag.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 12:00am
Johannesrolf, I have never one in my life advocated "getting rid of the government." I'm tired of you attributing that to me every time I correctly suggest that our Federal Government is too influential in our daily lives - and becoming more so every day.
you keep trotting out that moldy ideology, but you will not draw the consequence of saying where we should cut the gov't.
I guess you don't think we should shine the light on conditions of our poor. that is exactly what happens when a politician goes to a poor area, the press following behind. of course your reactionary creepy politicians never bother with that. they are too busy sucking up to big business.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 12:33pm
Poverty can't be resolved by the government throwing our money at it.
that's rich. in Iraq we are throwing money at a "problem" at an unprecedented rate.in every other walk of life, education also excepted, throwing money at it works quite well usually. Frei your line is phony, leading me to conclude after all this time....
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 12:36pm
our old people used to be the greatest number of poor. no more. after the gov't threw a lot of money at the problem with medicare, lo and behold they are no longer poor, with even their meds paid for by the public. now most of the poor are children.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 12:38pm
Why? Because politicians depend on votes bought by promises to end poverty.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person
whereas they do not depend on the huge amounts of money they get from industry groups. PHONY.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 12:44pm
I was reading an article the other day that stated one of the reasons we are not seeing much improvement in poverty is because of the massive influx of immigrants (mostly illegal and poor) which due to the magic of statistics keeps our poverty numbers high. Another reason was that many of the poor work on average 16 hours per week. I'll see if I can find it again and post a link.
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by USC1 09/06/2007 @ 1:45pm
i have answered your question from yesterday
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 1:54pm
Posted by USC1 09/06/2007 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person
Samuelson in yesterday's WaPo.
incidentally this was always so. it says so right on the Statue of Liberty, "give me your poor...."
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 2:31pm
Do you trust our politicians? I don't. Not a one.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person
how about corporate leaders? the clergy?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 2:32pm
But, whatever... Have a great day everyone! Oh, hey, I haven't been keeping up. Pelosi getting us out of Iraq yet? ANd hows that impeachment thing coming?
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person
they have been on vacation. but facts are not your strong suit, are they?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 2:33pm
incidentally this was always so. it says so right on the Statue of Liberty, "give me your poor...."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 2:31pm
yep, A PRESENT FROM ¡¡¡¡¡FRANCE!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 2:38pm
Biggest difference between us? You trust the motives of politicians. I don't because those motives are unpredictable and often bought. I trust the motivations of the private sector because they are more predictable and cannot FORCE me to do anything in the way our government can.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person
yes the motive of the private sector is to get the most possible money, and so we have corporations poisoning our land, and worse. lead paint in toys from China? Exxon Valdez?
the really serious part is that the Bush gov't has become the whore of rapacious corporations, dismantling environmental regs and putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
"By the way, Johannesrolf, before I'm accused of hating poor people and the government by you [AGAIN], let me repeat how my wife and I were helped by the WIC program when we were young and really struggling to make ends meet after our twins were born."
this program was brought to you by, wait for it, politicians. did you ask their motives when you accepted the helping hand?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 2:40pm
FROSTY, follow up to my comments a couple of days ago about substituting capital for labor in the farm sector......All the various (rather fascinating if one reads the full article) machines under R&D run from $200k to $500k and uses GPS, chem. analysis of sweetness, etc...before `picking'!
American technology and secured border may yet put a dent in the flow of illegal immigrants that depresses the lower end of the wage scale from sea to shining sea!
Farmers Mull Replacing Illegal Workers With Robots
Thursday, September 06, 2007
LOS ANGELES -- With authorities promising tighter borders, some farmers who rely on immigrant labor are eyeing an emerging generation of fruit-picking robots and high-tech tractors to do everything from pluck premium wine grapes to clean and core lettuce.
Such machines, now in various stages of development, could become essential for harvesting delicate fruits and vegetables that are still picked by hand.
"If we want to maintain our current agriculture here in California, that's where mechanization comes in," said Jack King, national affairs manager for the California Farm Bureau.
California harvests about half the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables, according to the state Food and Agriculture Department. The California Farm Bureau Federation estimates that the job requires about 225,000 workers year-round and double that during the peak summer season.
More than half of all farm workers in the country are illegal immigrants, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics.
Last year, amid heightened immigration enforcement, California's seasonal migration was marked by spot worker shortages, and some fruit was left to rot in the fields.
"There's a lot of very nervous people out there in agriculture in terms of what's going to be available in the labor force," said Robert Wample, viticulture and enology program director at California State University, Fresno.
Mechanized picking wouldn't be new for some California crops such as canning tomatoes, low-grade wine grapes and nuts.
But the fresh produce that dominates the state's agricultural output -- and that consumers expect to find unblemished in supermarkets -- is too fragile to be picked by the machines now in use.....
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 3:15pm
My "say so" is based on accumulated knowledge and first-person experiences of having dealt with lots of low/moderate income families through almost 30 years of being a landlord. At my `peak', I owned more than a dozen properties....and I have had Section 8 Tenants on at least 10 occasions. Unlike all or most of you, I have had actual relationships and first-hand close-up observations of Houston's `poor'!
In short, scattered anecdotes where you no doubt saw mostly what you wanted to see. I rather doubt that you engaged in any methodical observation of who had what.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2007 @ 3:35pm
...scattered anecdotes where you no doubt saw mostly what you wanted to see. I rather doubt that you engaged in any methodical observation of who had what.
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/06/2007 @ 3:35pm
What are you, a social scientist of the highest order? Or do you believe everything in print, someone's some study is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
What strikes people the most real are what they experience and/or see first hand, not the details of a thousand studies they read about in a lifetime! From your posts, you have not rebutted in any way that you have any first-hand AND long experience interacting with the poor or lower-middle class....the ones actually living paycheck to paycheck and often have to split monthly rent payments into bi-weekly or some other arrangements...yet their homes aren't missing anything for a comfortable life!
Get out of the ivory tower!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 4:09pm
From your posts, you have not rebutted in any way that you have any first-hand AND long experience interacting with the poor or lower-middle class....the ones actually living paycheck to paycheck and often have to split monthly rent payments into bi-weekly or some other arrangements...yet their homes aren't missing anything for a comfortable life!
And you haven't indicated that you've done anything but collect checks and remembered only those things that already dovetailed with your preconceptions. You're statement is about as weighty as a Reaganesque anecdote about welfare queens. You certainly haven't indicated that you've had enough experience with what's in their refrigerators on a regular basis to know what they can afford to eat, nor that you've had enough knowledge of their health history to know if they could afford medical care, if enough knowledge of their closets to know what their clothing situation was.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2007 @ 4:19pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/06/2007 @ 3:15pm
just give these people a guest worker program. most mexicans don't want to live in the u.s.. but, they need the money.
like i have previously pointed out, our guest worker program has been very successful for all parties involved.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 4:27pm
incidentally this was always so. it says so right on the Statue of Liberty, "give me your poor...."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 2:31pm
YOU ARE CORRECT!!! What's your point?
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 4:35pm
Frei, this may come as news to you but our gov't doers not consist of politicians only. it includes our judiciary, the envy of the world, our civil service and more.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 4:40pm
Haha, you know Johannesrolf, you win anyway. The US is moving to socialism and in many ways, we're already there. Soon the government will provide our health care services - just as you believe it should. The government will decide what we pay for ALL goods and services and what we are paid through price and 100% wage controls (CEO's will finally be punished for their excess pay - to the delight of most of the bloggers here). The government will provide our housing and our transportation, in fact government already subsidizes your housing, right?. Eventually that might lead to our being told where to live and where to travel by the government, but that's worth it for affordable housing and gas, right?
pretty much nonsense. reductio ad absurdum.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 4:43pm
Frosty
Yes, I saw it. I'm very sorry to hear about your mother. I actually had it backwards thinking you lived in Mexico while your mother was sick.
But I never said happiness had a price tag. My whole argument has been that the poor in the US are far better off than the poor in other countries.
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 4:45pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/06/2007 @ 3:15pm
Frankly, I think it'll be cool when R2-D2 and Tom Servo are picking my 'maters!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 4:52pm
You would vote for candidates proposing limits over CEO compensation, correct? You benefit already from government housing subsidies, right?
wrong. I have never advocated limits on compensation, I prefer the top tax bracket of 90%, as this country enjoyed in the past. I do not get any housing subsidies. more nonsense.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 5:08pm
My whole argument has been that the poor in the US are far better off than the poor in other countries.
Posted by USC1 09/06/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person
this is an absurd argument. whatsamatter, are our poor not poor enough for you?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 5:09pm
Posted by USC1 09/06/2007 @ 4:45pm
most of them are better off, yet they could do much better.
the american dream is more like a hallucination for many.
thank you for your kind words regarding my mom.
i lived in mex for 10 years and always tried to convince her to move there. with her savings in canadian dollars, she could have had a very luxurious retirement.
alas, she was too depressed to move, so we came back.
thanks again
FZ
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 5:31pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 5:03pm
that's good. i've noticed you're in need of a check up
:+}
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 5:33pm
....your preconceptions.....
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/06/2007 @ 4:19pm
What is it about my original post about a `burned in image' of a large screen TV means? That I had a preconceived notion to expect one when I walk into my lower-income tenant's home? I think I am wasting time w/you....you want to have the last word, go ahead! I'm thru w/you!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 5:45pm
..I think it'll be cool when R2-D2 and Tom Servo are picking my 'maters! heheh
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 4:52pm
LOL...I had to go look up what the frik is Tom Servo....ran no bells even staring at him! Does anyone else over 50 recognize the name "Tom Servo"? Well, at least, no one can accuse me as a TV junkie!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 6:00pm
.....just give these people a guest worker program....
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/06/2007 @ 4:27pm
Guest worker program as a stand alone won't fly! However, I think most Americans do NOT have a problem w/guest worker program IF our borders are SECURE and IF we are able to actually ID everyone here.....nearly fraud-proof Nat'l ID of some kind.....and IF we will have punishment of some type for those who overstays, are illegal (over quota but comes anyway) and who hires non-legal status foreign workers.....
This IS a natural issue for Dems, like Welfare Reform, and good for the whole country.....but they won't touch it. Whoever comes up with a way to sell a comprehensive program to the middle 2/3 of the country, can win any election!
You Canadians are LUCKY in that no Mexcians want to stay there when them FROSTY winters come!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 6:13pm
SIGH, LOL! Okay, enough. When someone argues that a 90% tax rate isn't really proposing a limitation on compensation, I know I'm wasting my time. :-)
taxation is not compensation.
And my apologies, Johannesrolf, I was certain I read in a past blog here at The Nation your posting that you live in a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person
I do live in a rent stabilized apartment. I pay the same rent I did when I moved in, adjusted for inflation. at the time I moved in it was market level. in other words what the market in that neighborhood would bear. market level in this neighborhood is higher now. there are no subsidies involved. you really must learn to make distinctions, or at least pay attention when others make them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 6:14pm
Guest worker program as a stand alone won't fly! However, I think most Americans do NOT have a problem w/guest worker program IF our borders are SECURE and IF we are able to actually ID everyone here.....nearly fraud-proof Nat'l ID of some kind.....and IF we will have punishment of some type for those who overstays, are illegal (over quota but comes anyway) and who hires non-legal status foreign workers.....
Hear, hear! Honestly, is it really that difficult?
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 6:25pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/06/2007 @ 5:45pm
I had a similar experience. Public housing with a late model Honda parked out front. Big screen TV in den with a (teenage appearring) kid watching it in the middle of a school day. Also had 2 more TVs upstairs, one which had Dreamcast, Nintendo 64, and a Playstation gaming systems with assorted games lying around.
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 6:29pm
KVH means " Dem's " when she states that " community leaders have stepped up" ! Would these be the likes of , say, all those DEMOCRATS in New Jersey that were so dedicated to their poor, uneducated constituents, that they took it upon themselves to take bribes when handing out gov't contracts? This is a major story conveniently ignored by the Nation! Now, look into the fact that these Dem's have relatives who have been convicted consitently for crimes ranging from corruption to KIDNAPPING, and yet ( intrue liberal fashion )they were still elected to office! Democrat voters are MORONS and when these MORONS elect KNOWN criminals, they get exactly what they deserve. Same goes for N.O. residents who re-elected the idiotic people ( Nagin etc ) that caused many of their problems in the first place ( I'd lay a little blame on Mother nature too) ! FOOLS!
Posted by barry25 at 09/06/2007 @ 6:37pm
Note: the " relatives " I was talking about are former Democratic LAWMAKERS in Jersey! Talk about " the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"!
Posted by barry25 at 09/06/2007 @ 6:39pm
this is an absurd argument. whatsamatter, are our poor not poor enough for you?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 5:09pm
They apparently have enough disposable cash to buy 1-2 TVs, 1-2 cars, cell phones, DVD players, cable programming, etc, etc. Maybe you can answer how they can afford all of those things (while working on average only 16 hours per week) and still not be able to afford their kid's lunches. Hmmm?
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 6:44pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/06/2007 @ 6:13pm
actually my wife and son (he's got dual) are mexican.
they love the winter and hate the heat of summer. i'm just the opposite.
my nation moniker has nothing to do with climate.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 6:56pm
....there are no subsidies involved. you really must learn to make distinctions, or at least pay attention when others make them.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 6:14pm
Uhh..sorry, but it's you who have lost the ability to "make distinctions"! But at least there is a damn good reason you've Lost It!
The owner of your "rent stabilized apartment" has suffered greatly while you chill in your "rent stabilized apartment"...such nice sounding euphemism.....He/she has been FORCED to subsidize you instead of always receiving (generally higher) market rent! And this subsidy increases every year as real estate goes up! In almost every OLD major city w/so-called housing crises, one can find "rent subsidized apartments" where people stay in place literally until they DIE!
On the other hand, most folks like you, are so tied down by the "Golden Lease", one wonders how many opportunities are passed up to buy their own place (& built equity) or relocate for some kind of career prospects! The SURE LOSERS are always the owner/landlord!
Incidentally, IF I lived in NYC when it went bankrupt and the city went to the dogs, I'd have bought, bought and bought....like the Pritzkers & Bronfmans who made huge fortunes buying up Manhattan office towers!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 7:03pm
Naw, no matter what you want to call it Johannesrolf, your rent is a government subsidy.
there is no subsidy involved.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 7:36pm
They apparently have enough disposable cash to buy 1-2 TVs, 1-2 cars, cell phones, DVD players, cable programming, etc, etc. Maybe you can answer how they can afford all of those things (while working on average only 16 hours per week) and still not be able to afford their kid's lunches. Hmmm?
Posted by USC1 09/06/2007 @ 6:44pm | ignore this person
who is this they? this is complete garbage. you are a clueless individual, and inhumanly callous too. do you think I would argue this crap? getalife.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 7:37pm
....what if government decides it is more fair a hispanic family gets your apartment in the name of diversity?
Of course that would never happen, would it?
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 7:17pm
Give NYC time....when Hispanics outnumber the "rent stabilized JRs" (hehehehe), I can see it happening, of course, out of `fairness' and diversity....may not even need a Hispanic mayor to see this happen, just Hispanic votes!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 7:40pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 7:17pm | ignore this person
you are a suburban dweller who is clueless what life in a big city is like. you actually have no idea.
"what if government decides it is more fair a hispanic family gets your apartment in the name of diversity?"
more absurdity. you are doing yourself no service with crap like this.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 7:42pm
...you are a clueless individual, and inhumanly callous too. do you think I would argue this crap? getalife.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 7:37pm
You have no idea how hilarious you sound when you lash out blindly! You have to be the only person on this board (that lives in NYC in a "rent stabilized apartment") who does NOT think he is being subsidized!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 7:43pm
who is this they? this is complete garbage. you are a clueless individual, and inhumanly callous too. do you think I would argue this crap? getalife.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 7:37pm
You can't argue this "crap". Go back to my first or second post on the thread and review the statistics. That should bring you up to speed. Of course, you can continue to live in your little fantasy world, but it doesn't serve you well on these threads as your recent posts demonstrate.
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 8:03pm
Frei, SF, like new york has rent control, so presumably you too were "subsidised". let's talk about your mortgage, the interest of which is tax deductable. now that is a subsidy. it is indeed the gov't giving you money, which it does not give to renters. fair? notachance. you see I don't have to make up absurd scenarios.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 8:40pm
I couldn't afford San Francisco rents and housing costs -
in spite of rent control? hahahaha.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 8:42pm
Posted by USC1 09/06/2007 @ 8:03pm | ignore this person
your post is nothing but a lame retread of the welfare queen lie that has long since been discredited. you have no idea how people actually live.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 8:44pm
because I couldn't afford San Francisco rents and housing costs - both of which would be significantly lower if devevelopment were allowed.
what absurd bullshit. in my city developers never build anything for moderate or low income people, unless they receive givebacks from the gov't.
San Francisco, fewer than 740 000 inhabitants. NYC over 8 million. so who lived in a big city, you or me?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2007 @ 8:49pm
check out this cartoon [ibiblio.org]
check out this map [censusscope.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 9:16pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 8:44pm
And you're an expert? Don't make me laugh. At least I have provided facts and statistics...something you have yet to do. You have nothing...unless you can provide a link that discredited this "lie" long ago. It'll be pretty hard to do because this report was from just a couple of days ago...drawn from government statistics.
Posted by usc1 at 09/06/2007 @ 9:57pm
....let's talk about your mortgage, the interest of which is tax deductable. now that is a subsidy. it is indeed the gov't giving you money, which it does not give to renters. fair?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2007 @ 8:40pm
You are being ganged up on but, NYC living has indeed, left you pretty clueless as to how most folks live.....
For lots of families living in moderate to low cost cities, their mortgage interests paid aren't that much! For 2006, the standard deduction for married couple was $10,300...which is even more than what I paid for my own mortgage interests! I assume I needn't explain any further!
Now, your point of a `subsidy' is far more valid for all those expensive BLUE areas where Jumbo Mortgages are commonplace...like NYC, imagine that! Last I heard, $600k will buy a NYC studio and anything family-sized, 7-figures!
Posted by Happy at 09/06/2007 @ 9:57pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/06/2007 @ 6:00pm
I am amongst the Philistines! [en.wikipedia.org]
Best episode ever..."Gamera vs Guiron"....Little Japanese girl goes upto her mother and tells her that her brother and American friend were just taken away on a flying saucer. The mother doesn't believe her and walks away. Little girl makes a pouty face and Tom Servo dubs over...
"I'll show her! I'll grow up to break up the Beatles!"
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 11:18pm
BTW, maybe someone can answer for Ms vanden Heuvel....
When WERE the "good ol' days" of Government anti-poverty programs? The 1970s? They just weren't working because "the economy was bad"?
Well...isn't that when anti-poverty programs are SUPPOSED to work best?!?!?!
So if she (Ms vH) has some example of a time-frame for the policies she wants and wants us to "go back to"....when is it?
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 11:21pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/06/2007 @ 10:23pm | ignore this person
I give up. you are an abysmal discussion partner and I will no longer try.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 08:56am
I give up. you are an abysmal discussion partner and I will no longer try.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/07/2007 @ 08:56am
don't give up.
just [cue sound of head banging against wall] bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! your way to a better understanding of their argument
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 09:37am
Thus, when we say that someone is "poor," we have to define what that means. Technically, a person is poor if he or she had cash income in 2006 of less than $10,294; for a family of four, it was $20,614. Not much. But as we said, income isn't everything.
The problem begins when people confuse the government's official definition of "poverty" with "standard of living." It's the latter that matters, even for the so-called poor.
"Poor" households in America own an awful lot of stuff. Nearly 43% own their own homes, 73% own cars or trucks, 80% have air conditioning, 99% have refrigerators, 64% own washer, 57% own dryers, 97% have color TV sets (more than half have two), 78% own VCR or DVD players, and over a third have personal computers.
Posted by USC1 09/04/2007 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person
USC1,
Brunowe already pointed out some of the absurdities in your misleading "stats," but I'd also like to add a few words. First of all, the baseline salary of $10,294. is the equivalent to a year of minimum wage earnings-which has been recently shown to be insuffient in securing housing for all US cities; a roof over one's head hardly conjures up Veblen's Theory of Conspicuous Consumption. Secondly, we would prefer you compare American living standards with other industrialized nations, not countries like Poland and El Salvador. Yes, it's nice for those low-rungers to have the luxuries of refrigerators, washing machines, televisions and telephones, but they might just trade their Sultan-like lives for job security and access to decent health care. And by the way, Americans do not compete with Europe and Japan for basic health indicators like infant mortality, life expectency, or access to basic health care-our closest statistical associates are Lithuania and Cuba. Although we maintain the highest overall levels of poverty in the industrialized world, you might find solace in our ranking as the Second Worst (behind the UK) among child poverty sufferers.
Considering the stagnation of wages over the past three decades this can hardly be a surprise. Looking at recent times, despite twenty percent productivity gains during this economic upturn, wages have only risen three percent (from 2000-02), and have actually declined since 2003. Oh, where art thou, my old friend Trickle Down--Why has thee not appeared? You and your dreary dreamers of market utopia are free to acknowledge the failures of the Reaganomics at any point...all it requires is for you to merely open your eyes and reflect on what has been obvious to the rest of us for years.
Posted by Oustbush at 09/07/2007 @ 1:26pm
Frosty Zoom, do you understand the argument? I don't think you do.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 1:14pm
i think i do.
but i don't think rent controls are too much of an imposition. i agree with jr's retort about mortgage deductions--it's a subsidy as well, albeit a less direct one.
the unbridled capitalism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries has thrust a dagger into the middle class.
the richest receive all sorts of gov't help (usually through corporations) either directly or indirectly, and because of their economic position have a much greater say in policy, despite the idea of one person, one vote.
we need gov't to regulate. otherwise anarchy would rule the day. even if the gov't provided police services, our world would be an even greater environmental mess than it is now.
The government pretends to be endowed with the mystical power to accord favors out of an inexhaustible horn of plenty.
well, governments seem to be ready to empty that cornucopia with their buddies in the military industries.
they redistribute a lot of money, but not to the bottom of wage earners, but to the top.
i don't think handouts are the answer. education is. all that money could fund free university education. if a poor young person saw that graduating from high school might actually further her life, that she might actually be able to get the kind of education that would be usable in the 21st century, she would probably work a hell of a lot harder.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 2:41pm
all that money could fund free university education. if a poor young person saw that graduating from high school might actually further her life, that she might actually be able to get the kind of education that would be usable in the 21st century, she would probably work a hell of a lot harder.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/07/2007 @ 2:41pm
An awful lot of assumptions there! didn't you caution the MASKer NOT to assume so much?
Do you think MOST high school dropouts don't know that staying and graduate is better in the long run? Do you think MOST folks who start smoking, drinking, hooking, xyz don't know what's better for them in the long run?
Let's suppose we take the Edward's approach of forced HS graduation followed by forced college completion....FOR THEIR OWN GOOD OF COURSE....do you see any problems in this approach? One Big One is `Punishments'....if these `poor' folks don't `perform' even while sitting in classrooms until they are 22~26 yrs. old?
Can you Libs get through your thick heads that your idealized world will NEVER BE....unless through genetics engineering, we all become clones of each other with identical intelligence, motivations and preferably of the same skin and hair color....oh, and of the same religion or even better, NO religion to complicate things!
Posted by Happy at 09/07/2007 @ 3:25pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/07/2007 @ 09:37am |
Heads-up for a "TN" newbie, FROST...."Professor" JOHANNES is a sanctimonious sphincter. Get "too silly" or not deferential enough to his OBVIOUS greater intellect on matters great and small.....and you're off to his voluminous Ignore Bin.
You're better off if he does.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 3:31pm
Went to go Ape shit? Heck, it's Friday (NOT a good one on Wall St.).......
Shock: kids smarter than chimps
By Will Dunham
September 07, 2007 09:22am Article from: Reuters
IN another case of researchers reporting the bleeding obvious, European scientists have found that children are smarter than chimpanzees.
A unique study comparing the abilities of human toddlers to chimpanzees and orang-utans found that two-year-old children have social learning skills superior to the apes, the researchers said.
In one social learning test, a researcher showed the children and apes how to pop open a plastic tube to get food or a toy contained inside. The children observed and imitated the solution.
Chimpanzees and orang-utans, however, tried to smash open the tube or yank out the contents with their teeth.
European scientists gave a battery of cognitive tests lasting three to five hours separately to 105 2-year-old children, 106 chimpanzees and 32 orang-utans over two weeks.
"Using these multiple tests allows us to pinpoint where are the similarities and where are the differences," researcher Josep Call of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany said.
The researchers believe their findings provide insight into the evolution of human cognition.
People's brains are three times larger than those of the closest primate relatives.
"This is the first time that anything like this has been done," said Max Planck Institute researcher Esther Herrmann....
------------------------------------------------
We have a surplus of these type of `researchers'.....the next STUDY will test these same ape/chimpies against 3 months old human babies....then, guess what, apes/chimps will test out to be "smarter"....just another one of my wild HAPPY hunches!
Posted by Happy at 09/07/2007 @ 4:06pm
I'm most curious, though what makes you think the government that's bringing you Iraq will be the government that straightens up the health care system? Does that bother you even a little? Or is our government everything you think it needs to be once we oust Bush?
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person
Freiheit,
I will confess that I perceive you as relatively fair in your assertions and arguments, Fre. Your points regarding life excpectancy, infant mortality and general health in this country, however, do not really offer much assistance in comparisons with the US and other nations. If it is the abnormally high rate of transportation fatalities to blame for lower life expectancy here, well, this is not helping your argument as most of those alligned with my perspective call for more efficient public transportation such as that found in Europe. Our calls for transforming domestic transportation are derided as "socialist fantasies." The higher rates of violent crime are certainly not unrelated to the larger proportion of poverty and economic disparity found here. The problem with our health system is of the fundamental contradiction between health and treating human beings, and the goal of HMOs to maximize profits and save money.
The basic role as I see it for government is to provide for the general welfare of its constituents, or more specifically, to provide a force of countervailing power against the narrow interests of concentrated wealth. Humans are not strictly creatures of self-interest and greed; middle America and the "Heartland" demographic do not share the values and behaviors of Wall Street tycoons. You yourself have admitted to restricting car use to offset the collateral consequences of pollution. I would add that the rise of productivity without corresponding wage increases is due to the imbalance of power between capital and labor. Government has been placing its thumb hard on the scale in favor of business for the past several decades. These things are not natural law or destiny, but the result of human relations and lack of negotiating strength in the labor market, despite low unemployment and increased productivity gains.
As far as Iraq and government proving its incompetence through that war, of course the quality or lack of stems from the individuals currently serving themselves-- I mean the people. When government is run by a gang of blood-sucking vampires and leeches who proclaim govt as the problem and then out of self interest proceed to gut agencies designed to offer minimal protections for its citizenry against the ravages of industry, yes, things will go badly. And no I do not place much hope in the hands of the Democrats. I think the free reign of capital and industry run amok will create the conditions favorable for the eventual change and reform necessary to address and hopefully stabilize the ship. Without a strong central government we will have something akin to Russia in the Yelstin days, so it really amazes me to hear this vapid anti-government speech.
Posted by Oustbush at 09/07/2007 @ 4:31pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/07/2007 @ 4:06pm
Ohhhhhh, just you wait, HAPP.....2000 years from now, Charleton Heston and this hot cave-girl babe will stumble upon the Statue of Liberty washed up on a beach and THEN who'll have the last laugh???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 4:42pm
i don't think handouts are the answer. education is. all that money could fund free university education.
Frost, you are correct. I went to the City College of New York . this institution, known as the Harvard of the proletariat, was free for 120 years.
no more. tuition is now $4,000 a year. modest in comparison, sure, but prohibitive for some.
education is the best investment a society can make, while war is the worst.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 5:58pm
And no I do not place much hope in the hands of the Democrats.
I say give them a chance. after the next election with more than 60 senators and a dem in the executive position, they will have a chance to reverse the horrible policies of the repubs, and set a future course that is more humane. a few supreme court justices too will be a boost for progressive policies that america used to be known for.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 6:01pm
I have heard that some european countries do not charge their young citizens any tuition fees, Germany for instance.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 6:02pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/07/2007 @ 3:25pm
free university is a better idea than tactical nuclear weapons
and cheaper, too
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:47pm
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 4:42pm
*nova was played by linda harrison
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:51pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 4:45pm
unbridled etc. is a cliché.
got to admit that. corp subsidies--you're 100% correct--this is something i've commented on numerous times.
oops
as in nationalized health care which I'm confident you support as a dutiful useful idiot.
well, i've been quite happy with the medical care my family has received here in canada. so if that makes me an idiot, accepted. however, it seems only an "idiot" would accept a for-profit company in charge of his health care--"sorry sir, you have veins. we're afraid we can't cover you"--
obviously people at the bottom get $ and i see a lot of undeserving people receive it. but i see many more who desperately need it. i don't mind if my taxes go to helping poor people, it makes me proud, despite the inefficiencies. better that than tanks (you listening, harper--didn't think so)
i personally think that people who need long term financial help should work for the $ when their kids are in school. i know lots of places where they could plant trees.
school funding--my point wasn't how much is spent. my point was how much could be spent if priorities weren't so violent
teacher's unions--any organization will become more corrupt as it gains power--and it seems that corruption attracts incompetents (i guess the honest people get fed up). good teachers work really, really hard--it's extremely tiring, more so than heavy labour sometimes (i've done both--anecdotal, i know).
bad teachers should look for new employment. if a union defends an incompetent, then i think they are just digging their own grave.
i don't really care what's important to the [insert political party], i care about what's important to the students.
Put down your jug of koolaid, Frosty, and connect some dots.
haven't drunk kool-aid in years--poison. if you want a good drink, try this:
take fruit (local, in season). put in blender. add water. blend. sugar optional. drink. yum.
in mexico they call this "agua de sabor" [flavour water]
But you are trying.
........¿aren't we all?................
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 11:30pm
FREIHEIT:
please compare these two maps:
u.s. minimum wages [en.wikipedia.org]
u.s. persistent poverty by county (source USDA Economic Research Service [farm1.static.flickr.com]
a simple superimposition of these two maps is quite telling.
please check.
thanks
FZ
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 11:43pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 6:11pm
Industry can't make me do anything.
well, they can turn your air, water, and soil into poison. now, they can't make you breathe, drink, or eat. nevertheless all three activities are highly recommended.
Try boycotting your taxes because you disagree with US actions in Iraq...
everytime i pay my taxes i wish they had little check boxes for all the different possible ways my money could (will) be spent. then we'd really see democracy in action.
unfortunately this can only be done now by lobbying and that is the playground of the rich.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 11:52pm
Ultimately our march to the new world order is indifferent to which political party is in office.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 6:32pm
i've said "tweedle-dum and tweedle-dummer"
let's change that to: "tweedle-greed and tweedle-greedier"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 11:55pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 7:03pm
please post a link to the student stats.
i've looked and looked.
home schooling is illegal. that's nuts. my son refused to go to grade 1 (good for him--why make 6 year olds sit around all day (more on that at a later date)) and so after 3 months of getting nowhere we decided to home-school. he's learned a whole bunch. but man, it is hard work. my kudos to professional grade school teachers! he's now in grade 2 at public school and doing quite well. if you want to get to know your kids, i mean really know them, i highly recommend it (for a while).
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 12:12am
Frost, enjoy this time with your son. someday, sooner than you think, he will tower over you and be a senior in high school and all the years in between will seem like a dream.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/08/2007 @ 12:30am
Sigh, no wonder we're ignored by our representatives.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 7:41pm
ah, but not by me (hooray!)
Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism founded by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, and closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. Austrian economics, anti-federalism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.
Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational allocation of capital goods to their most productive uses.
Praxeology is the science of human action. The term was first coined in 1890 by Alfred Espinas in the Revue Philosophique, but the most common use of the term is in connection with the work of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and his adherents.
Mises attempted to find the conceptual root of economics. Like other Austrian and classical economists, he rejected the use of observation, saying that human actors are too complex to be reduced to their component parts and too self-conscious not to have their behaviour affected by the very act of observation. Observation of human action, or extrapolation from historical data, would thus always be contaminated by overlooked factors in the way that the natural sciences would not be (although in quantum mechanics observation of one property of a system causes uncontrollable changes in other properties).
To counter the subjective nature of the results of historical and statistical analysis, Mises looked at the logical structure of human action (he entitled his magnum opus Human Action). In other works he built on the methodological aspect of Economics, on a PostKantian base, the synthetic a priori.
From praxeology Mises derived the idea that every conscious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction. He noted that praxeology is not concerned with the individual's definition of end satisfaction, just the way he sought that satisfaction and that individuals will increase their satisfaction by removing sources of dissatisfaction or "uneasiness".
when i lived in mexico (1992-2001) neoliberalism was all the rage.
Policies Advanced by Neoliberalism:
Fiscal rectitude, meaning that governments would cut expenditures and/or raise taxes to maintain a budget surplus
Competitive exchange rates, whereby governments would accept market-determined exchange rates, as opposed to implemented government-fixed exchange rates, as had prevailed under the Bretton Woods System
Free Trade, which means the removal of trade barriers, like tariffs, subsidies, and regulatory trade barriers
Privatization, which means the transfer of previously-public-owned enterprises, goods, and services to the private sector.
Undistorted Market Prices, meaning that governments would refrain from policies that would alter market prices.
Limited Intervention, with the exception of intervention designed to promote exports, some kinds of education or infrastructural development.
well, during this time i saw people who were no longer able to buy milk, tortillas, etc (yet the prices were "fair")
i saw many people lose their employment because of privatization (but it's more efficient--so what?--redundancy is one of the greatest strengths in natural systems)
chinese junk began to flood the market and mexican factories began to close.
the exchange rate went nuts and people suffered.
and the government stopped many of the programs that had aleviated (yes, inefficiently) much suffering.
all this was supposed to bring prosperity (and it did--to ten people). yet it only made things worse.
more mexicans are trying to get into the u.s. than ever before.
please don't say it's because there are way more mexicans--mexico is one of the greatest success stories in controlling the demographic explosion (god damn government--educating us)
BTW from reading this, i guess you won't be interested in comparing the maps. too bad.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 12:37am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/08/2007 @ 12:30am
hey there!
of course i enjoy it. way more than studying "Paleolibertarianism".
but that's fun, too.
my son reminds me of mr. spock
BTW i took FREI'S quote from MIES (who the hell is that) and pasted it into google.
Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time..............
this is what i found:
"Monetary Central Planning and the State, Part 31: Ludwig von Mises on the Case for Gold and a Free Banking System
by Richard M. Ebeling, July 1999"
part 31 ouch
from this website of the "The Future of Freedom Foundation" [fff.org]
The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.
Declaration of Principles
The United States was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, individuals have the natural and God-given right to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy, these inherent and inalienable rights.
JR: i work all morning tomorrow. will you pleases discuss this with FREIHEIT if you get a chance.
FREIHEIT: sorry i didn't answer you "in person". i started talking about god. it was a lot of fun.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 12:57am
FREIHEIT is the German word for both freedom and liberty.
sir, i understand your viewpoint. i guess i'd rather use resources for the good of all. i like helping people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 01:03am
FREIHEIT:
'scuse my bonk!ing previously directed at thee.
while i do not agree with some of your ideas (call me naïve--i you dare--bwahahaha) (and if i understand them--think i do), you must have spent some time researching your viewpoint, and that can only garner my respect (that is, if YOU understand yourself--:+} ).
will admit this--when i first arrived in mexico, inflation was so bad that you had to (almost) run to the checkout at the store before they raised they raised the price marked on the aisle. when i left, it was at about 50%. and that was substantial progress.
trouble is, by privatizing and removing price controls on essential goods (milk, tortillas, beans (the best beans in mexico are "frijól negro Michigan"--yep, from grand rapids), cement), the majority of people (the poor) could only afford them by cutting out such luxuries as fruit and vegetables.
and because people still had to buy these staples, the owners of the now privatized (but still mono/oligopolies) companies made a whole bunch of cash
once again thank you for challenging my neurons
now i can get back to real business........................
"¿honey, have you seen the remote?, scooby-doo* started four minutes ago...................."
*the guilty party is professor higganbotham, and i'm glad those kids meddled, otherwise he would have stolen all the gold.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 08:36am
You do understand that industry has no power over us at all if government is only involved in commerce and industry as a neutral regulator? We only need protection from industry if it has the power of government behind it because government and ONLY government that can FORCE citizens to do anything.
I believe we need protection from our government, more than from industry. Industry can't make me do anything. Government can force me to do anything. Don't believe me? Try boycotting your taxes because you disagree with US actions in Iraq...
And most on the left want to allow even greater government control. Why is that?
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/07/2007 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person
Frei,
Now you're being a bit more fair in the discussion. Neutral regulator is the key, but I seriously doubt even you would claim, particularly since the push towards the Reagan-right, that we've had government as fair arbiter. I also disagree with your claim that government is less a powerful force in American society than industry. The reason we have so many government regulations is due to the severe consequences of the Great Depression; industry and private wealth, with 12 years of laissez-faire Republican wind in its sails, wrought unprecedented economic devastation. Income disparity was obscene and the nation was ready for reform. You may lash out at the Federal Reserve and the myriad of regulations but just dare consider their effects on the economy; compare the economic recessions/depressions post 1930s with those of the mid-19th-early 20th century.
Industry never remains powerless over our lives. You make some substantive, challenging points, but here I see your weakest statement. Any individual requiring income and salary to survive (close to all of us, right?) would challenge the notion that industry cannot force one to do anything (by the way, force is not always necessary--just consider the circumstances of those sacrificing the most: soldiers--does the gvt need to FORCE them to sign up?). Employment opportunities are directly related to income in this country: the more money one is born into, the better the education. The power to negotiate working conditions depends on the quality of education received. Really, this seems quite elemental, wouldn't you agree? And who do you think elected government officials and politicians most accurately represent as "neutral regulators?" Which class, and from which universities and schools? They are loyal to their background demographic and to those relationships cultivated in their upbringing. Need I even mention the so-called "externalities" of business, such as pollution and the resulting consequences? Do you really believe that going to the doctor because of lung disease or cancer caused by industrial pollutants is more comforting a "choice" to be made than complying with those damn FDA safety regulations? Is this point clear?
The corporation is an entity of private power unaccountable to the people (except in theoretical rhetoric conflating consumerism with democracy and so on). I do not have much faith in government, but it is at least, supposed to be checked through the process of elections. Of course, this is not realistic to date, largely due to the level of big money washing out the voice of Joe American, along with the convenient redrawing of voting districts to ensure easy re-election, etc.
I would be more interested in discussing the role of the Fed, though I really do not have much time here, unfortunately. One of the Nation writers, William Greider has an excellent book on this subject...if you don't mind 717 pages devoted to the topic. My guess is that you are one of those who still enjoy the act of reading books, so this wouldn't really be a problem.
Posted by Oustbush at 09/08/2007 @ 1:25pm
FREIHEIT 09/08/2007 @ 2:08pm
thank you. thank you. thank you.
as my vision has gotten better in life i've come to see many things that trouble my heart.
and i can feel out who the responsibles are (usually sometimes rarely always).
but i've never thought about (muchly) how to pay for it.
but thanks to you, don't ask me why, or ask me why, i am now thinking about it.
{oops, almost forgot:
isn't an economic model based on the rejection of empirical evidence based on empirical evidence that was rejected?}
this is what i've come up with:
"freedunomics"--the river flows unto the sea, and each individual jumps into the swirling eddies, hoping to get caught in a current both gentle and swift that will safely carry them to the awaiting tropics.
"controlanomics": it is decreed that the river shall be damned, correction dammed, and we shall harness the power of all the river's energy on your behalf in order to make things go round and round and round and round.
"Frostynomics": "Honey, get off that friggin' blog and go get us some water."
"Uh, what's that, darlin'? Uh, yeah, right away."
I, Frosty Zoom, do hereby declare, to use the smallest of buckets when i go to the river. I will endeavour not to spill a drop. I will try to save every drop i have fouled and will return this life-giving force back to it's flow (almost) as clean as the moment i first fetched it.
"Te amo, ahorita regreso"
"Adios" ("to god")
LIBERTY AND FREEDOM: i sincerely thank you for opening up my brain to the idea of "how".
chido, güey.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 4:26pm