Why Bush is Wrong on Poverty

In his September 15 speech to the nation, President Bush asserted that poverty in America is mostly restricted to the nation's Southern states. Like a lot of right-wing ideologues when it comes to issues of race and poverty in America, he's in denial.

Many Republicans seem to believe that poverty is confined to one region of the nation, that the past (i.e. what Bush called a "history of racial discrimination") should shoulder the blame for the problem, and that individuals make choices that determine their station in life. Bush's supporters hold the White House and the Republican agenda blameless, and argue that the president's vision for building an "ownership society" will enable America's poor to build a better life for themselves and their families.

The first thing wrong with such arguments is that poverty is not simply found in the deep South, as Bush suggested in primetime. Poverty is a fact of life in every city and state nationwide. Sociologist Andrew Beveridge (at the request of the New York Times) recently conducted an economic survey of New York City and confirmed what other studies have already shown--that New York is divided between the rich and the poor. This fabulously wealthy city has more than its share of entrenched poverty and racial economic disparities.

In the Bronx, the poverty rate is 30.6 percent, outranked only by three border counties in Texas where living costs are far lower. Overall, New York City's poverty rate was 21.8 percent, and people of color are more than twice as likely to be poor as non-Hispanic whites. Beveridge's study revealed as well that the bottom fifth of Manhattan's income-earners are paid two cents for each dollar that the top fifth currently earns. Economist Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute argues that Manhattan by itself is actually "an amplified microcosm" of poverty in the nation at large. (Manhattan is also leading the way when it comes to another ominous trend: as the Fiscal Policy Institute recently warned, the city's middle class is being wiped out.)

America's claim to shame is that it has the highest level of poverty in the industrialized world. Bush's four and a half years of trickle-down theories have failed miserably. The poor have become even poorer. The nation's poverty rate has climbed from a 27 year low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 percent last year. Thirty seven million Americans are living below the poverty line, a group so large, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter pointed out in a post-Katrina cover article, that it amounts to "a nation of poor people the size of Canada or Morocco living inside the United States."

Bush may talk about addressing poverty in this rich nation, but his coldhearted agenda has made the problems much more pronounced. His administration gave a massive tax break to corporations and the wealthiest individuals in his first term; since then, despite evidence of rising income inequalities, a growing sea of red ink, and $200 billion needed to fight the war in Iraq and another $200 billion we will spend to rebuild the Gulf region, Bush has ruled out repealing any of his tax cuts for the rich.(And this while household incomes failed to rise for five consecutive years--for the first time on record.)

Bush leads a Republican party that has refused to increase the minimum wage (stuck at $5.15 an hour since 1997), tried to cut Medicaid, food stamps, housing for the poor, Social Security, and promoted "faith-based initiatives" to rally "armies of compassion" that are supposed to assist the poor through the right-wing panacea of charitable, religious giving. His Gulf Opportunity Zone is a sham. And while this White House tries to cut worker's pay in rebuilding the Gulf region, it lines the pockets of those poster boys of corruption--Halliburton and KBR--with no-bid contracts. As Derrick Jackson wrote in the Boston Globe last week, Bush's plan "will squeeze yet more pulp out of the poor."

If there is a bright spot amidst the despair and catastrophe, it is that some in the mainstream media have started addressing issues of poverty, race and class in America. I don't know how long this moment will last. But if some in the big media consistently and aggressively report on poverty and class as central issues in US politics and society --and a few leading political figures find the political will, the imagination and the courage to fight for policies that have proven to work in tackling such an intractable problem--maybe we will see some progress.

Comments (95)

1. No bold manifestos or sweeping statements??! Thats all this woman know how to do!

   CT

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/26/2005 @ 1:02pm

2. "Thats all this woman know how to do!"

   talk about sweeping statements....!

   Posted by dabar at 09/26/2005 @ 1:14pm

3. Just what is CT trying to get at?

   Posted by mekon111 at 09/26/2005 @ 1:17pm

4. Having just returned from a trip to NYC, I am glad to have returned to my little middle class hamlet. It's easy to lose yourself among so many people and such enormous structures. Being on the ground in such a dense area is unnerving at times and clearly is too complicated a situation to be viewed clearly by our President.

   One of Bush's most admirable traits is his ability to see the forest. He can watch as many of the trees are growing tall, strong, and leafy, and feel proud of these particular trees. Problem is he is viewing his forest from Air Force One and is not carrying his binoculars, thereby missing the astonishing number of withering trees whose sunlight is blocked by the great trees. He even has special nicknames for the really tall trees, the ones that routinely sacrifice their lower limbs for the creation of new "political capital". He does however have a special scout team that identifies large groupings of the small, weak trees who are ground up for mulch to nourish and protect the great nicknamed trees.

   Sorry for the flowery writing--I was aiming at something sweeping, perhaps even manifestoic.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/26/2005 @ 1:49pm

5. Don't be sorry, it's entirely appropriate. Bush is manifesting lots of stoics.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 09/26/2005 @ 1:53pm

6. Poverty in America is the type of subject that would require real leadership. I cannot envision a scenario where we'll ever see real leadership again in this country. Poverty would require leadership because "it's the right thing to do", but the political rewards are miniscule in comparison to the political costs.

   Bottom line: If you're poor in America then just pull yourself up by your bootsraps. If you're too poor to own bootstraps then no matter we'll just brush you under the carpet.

   Terror alert levels have to be used at least once in a while when there isn't an election happening.

   So when Fitzpatrick wraps up this thing on Rove / Bolton can we expect to see the sordid reasons why "reporter" Jeff Gannon was in the Whitehouse dozens of times when there was no press briefing?

   So let's see:

   Rove, Libby, Bolton are all going down for the Valerie Plame act of Treason.

   Tom Delay is going down with Abramhoff.

   Frist is going down for insider trading.

   Someone in the Whitehouse was using Jeff Gannon for paid gay sex and perhaps Fitzpatrick knows who (prostitution was illegal in DC last time I checked).

   Am I missing anyone?

   Posted by colmes at 09/26/2005 @ 2:14pm

7. I'm not sure Katrina has it quite right. The failure of supply side trickle down economics didn't start with George W. Bush, it started with Ronald Reagan. The current Bush's father referred to this lunacy as "voodoo economics" and he was right, but he lost the primaries because the allure of having one's cake and eating it too overcame rationality. For more than 40 years, Republicans have been illogically credited with fiscal conservatism, the legacy of Barry Goldwater, who thought that deficits did matter.

   I know that facts seem to take a back seat to platitudes, but here they are. Since 1970, sustained reduction in the percentage of increase or decrease from the previous year for federal deficits is seen only in the periods 1976-1980 and 1992-2001. For the "fuzzy math" mob, that's Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

   The sloganeers will say that this is because we spend too much, although Tom DeLay doesn't agree. That leaves deficit spending, which amounts to the ethically challenged taking a cash advance against my child's credit card. So much for personal responsibility.

   Posted by Rodriguez at 09/26/2005 @ 2:18pm

8. Is poverty now Bush and a republican problem? Somebody explain all the anti povery programs that Johnson wanted and Nixon installed. How many trillions spent on poverty programs? Where did the money go? Should we send more now? Did it help? If not, as many are now saying since "poverty went up", then shouldn't we cancel the programs? If not then what is the answer? Was this not the fixture of liberalism of the 60s? Did not the dems control the countrys 3 branches of gov during those years? I really need to understand this. Same goes for all the complaining of racism and poverty that comes from Jackson,et. al., billions have sent to people in the mail for what? At some juncture personal responsibility has to come into play. Am I the only one who has a problem with "generations" of families on the public "send me a check list"? I can never blame one man for a problem which apparently has been around since ..beginning of country?

   What is the poverty rate in income now? Can somebody come forth with the amount?

   Posted by john maasch at 09/26/2005 @ 2:50pm

9. forget welfare. the vast majority of the poor and struggling--NONSAVING, scraping by, medically uninsured, rightless, one-lost-paycheck-away-from-complete-ruin have jobs.

   add it up and you'll find that the percent that this "govt" spends on welfare is barely a statistical blip in real $$. welfare? grow up.

   Posted by dabar at 09/26/2005 @ 3:05pm

10. Hi Katrina:

    As a Republican, I don't agree with you very often. But I admire you nonetheless. Back when I was a counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, I made a point of listening to your testimony whenever you appeared before the Committee. Sometimes it was it hard to concentrate on what you were saying because you are so beautiful, sexy and full of life. You always left me dazzled.

    I'm writing today to simply say that you've still got it, baby. In every sense. I think there should be a photo gallery devoted to celebrating your beauty on "The Nation" website. One photo of you isn't enough.

    Here's to you!

    Rick

    Posted by RickInFlorida at 09/26/2005 @ 3:19pm

11. John Maasch:

    Here is a good site on poverty statistics:

    http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

    For 2004, the pre-tax income threshold for a two-parent family with two children was $22,543.

    There haven't been "generations" of families on the public "send me a check list" since 1993...so what current program would you have us cancel, and how exactly would that advance the well-being of the poor?

    Posted by 9patch at 09/26/2005 @ 3:21pm

12. Dabar

    Then all you are saying is everybody spends more than they make..sounds irresponsible. I don't think you are genuine.

    Trillions, with a T, has been spent on anti poverty programs. What has happened?

    That is real money. All my poor paid jobs lead me to another one and a better one. I realize not all can do this, but are you saying millions and millions need my money to survive? What did these people do before governmrnt programs were even around.

    YOU GROW UP... I need my momey for my family. Count the number of taxes we all pay and you will find it is more than half of all your income, if you figure in state,local fed, and all the fees. Even Al Gores"lets all hook up the schools to the internet" fee on your cable bill.

    The governmrnt exists because of my money not the other way around, so I would like to teach my neighbor how to fish, not feed him half my fish forever. Think about it.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/26/2005 @ 3:23pm

13. By the way.. I also have always thought Katrina was and is hot, and yes, as a somewhat right side of the street guy, I admire intelligence from all sides .......Katrina is very bright... and hot.

    Do you think she kept her tax cut?

    Posted by john maasch at 09/26/2005 @ 3:26pm

14. John Maasch:

    I've looked up figures for you -- perhaps you can look this up for me.

    What fraction of the federal budget goes toward alleviating poverty? Please be sure to separate out spending on medicare and social security for the elderly.

    Posted by 9patch at 09/26/2005 @ 3:29pm

15. Zero,

    Your 3:30 post was very well put. Thanks!

    Posted by 9patch at 09/26/2005 @ 3:33pm

16. Anti-War, My Foot The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington. By Christopher Hitchens Updated Monday, Sept. 26, 2005, at 11:19 AM PT

    Are they really "anti-war"? Saturday's demonstration in Washington, in favor of immediate withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, was the product of an opportunistic alliance between two other very disparate "coalitions." Here is how the New York Times (after a front-page and an inside headline, one of them reading "Speaking Up Against War" and one of them reading "Antiwar Rallies Staged in Washington and Other Cities") described the two constituenciess of the event:

    The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.

    The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper--to mention only two radical left journalists--who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.

    Continue Article

    The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party--Ramsey Clark's core outfit--is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along … well, they just tag along.

    To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

    Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation--these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake--would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

    The two preferred metaphors are, depending on the speaker, that the Bin-Ladenists are the fish that swim in the water of Muslim discontent or the mosquitoes that rise from the swamp of Muslim discontent. (Quite often, the same images are used in the same harangue.) The "fish in the water" is an old trope, borrowed from Mao's hoary theory of guerrilla warfare and possessing a certain appeal to comrades who used to pore over the Little Red Book. The mosquitoes are somehow new and hover above the water rather than slip through it. No matter. The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel. Thus, the existence of the Taliban regime cannot be swamplike, presumably because mosquitoes are born and not made. The huge swamp that was Saddam's Iraq has only become a swamp since 2003. The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism. While the attack on the World Trade Center--well, who needs reminding that chickens, or is it mosquitoes, come home to roost?

    There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

    Posted by libsarenutty at 09/26/2005 @ 3:40pm

17. JOHN MAASCH is simply voicing again the goofy, simple-minded attitude that we hear so often from the Red State reactionaries. While hugely infuriated at the idea that some people game the Welfare system for a few bucks per week, somehow they never seem to work up much indignity for the billions wasted, stolen, defrauded, or otherwise sucked out of the Treasury by their heros, the good citizen-businessmen who are so ravenously greedy that EVEN the Bush Justice Dept. can't ignore them (although they try mightily). During the Enron fiasco, I asked a Bush-voter who was inveighing angrily about a neighbor whom he suspected was falsely applying for disability benefits whether the news that the Enron scumbags, who had wiped out the life savings of thousands of people just like him while attempting to scurry away with millions, roused any significant emotion in him. No, he said, it was terrible, of course, but this layabout next door faking a back injury, now THAT pissed him off. I submit that this kind of social dyslexia is endemic among reactionaries like JOHN MAASCH and goes far toward explaining what seems on the surface to be unalloyed doltishness.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 09/26/2005 @ 3:59pm

18. The Katrina effect, and it's affect on the nation: bush is just like Katrina wiping out everything in his path.

    Bush isn't just wrong on poverty he is and has been wrong on everything! But the difficulty here is that Bush is the symbol, not the source, I get annoyed at Bush this Bush that, it is THE Rove and Cheney policies that are criminal, immoral and destructive. Bush as ever the dupe, the idiot, the Charley McCarthy to Roves' Edgar Burgen. I resent giving him more intelligence than he has.

    AS for the Democrats well I keep looking for some leadership but alas the Katrina effect... wiping out all ability to muster up some guts and tell the truth. But they like the Republicans stay silent hoping to be re-elected.

    We do need a party for and by the people. For today we in America are pretty much a Fascist Nation.

    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini"

    How did Fascism take hold in Europe? Basically the silence of the people and those in power. If you think it can't happen here, I've go bridge I can sell ya' !

    We would not be the first nation to fall. We've only been around 200 + years that's nothing, Iraq, Egypt, 2,000 years. Britian, France, Italy, been around a while ya think? But these right wing whackos are to arrogant and smug to listen to these countries they have "been there done that" . They are FAR from perfect, but not stupid either.

    As far as the Iraq war... well maybe a correlation might help so much of what this administration has done has been pure stupidity and arrogance.. now can we remember 230 or so years ago when a group of colonies wanted independence and had to fight the mighty empire and all their men and guns... well who won that battle and why? They won in great part because of the arrogance and smugness of the enemy. So why do you think insurgents today are fairing so well, this administrations colossal arrogance, and not giving our men what they needed militarily, or culturally, to fight. Our guys couldn't even say hello in Arabic!!! And as John Anderson of the New Yorker said... the insurgents saw an enemey that WAS NOT invisible, and that gave them the courage to take us on. Plus we gave them all the arms they needed from unguarded stashes.

    Now we must deal with that. And if we bail as I'm sure we will around the next election of course. Not only will the insurgents take over, but we can add to that the disdain of the citizens of Iraq, who believed in us, (maybe foolishly). I know it's no comfort to them to know that we here were fooled too. For this administration is so bad and criminal as to make Nixon look like a damned Boy Scout!

    Posted by bamnation at 09/26/2005 @ 4:14pm

19. I'm a little confused by the position of "The Nation" and its staff on the issue of "poverty".

    In 1996, when Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform bill (essentially the Republican bill), Katrina vanden Heuval and David Corn LOATHED it and claimed that it would throw thousands of poor women and children into the streets.

    By 2000, the poverty rate at dropped to new lows and little if any coverage of the "Dickensian" conditions appeared (since they did NOT exist).

    NOW, with "Katrina", the issue of "poverty" is back and many on the Left are pointing at the LOW rates of poverty during the Clinton years as a "guideline" for what SHOULD be done (and obviously what Bush is NOT doing).

    SO....does Ms vanden Heuval and Mr Corn, et al, want us to ..."go back to the Clinton years" in our policies towards the poor? MORE welfare reform?

    and if not, why not?....given that THAT example seems to be the one that "worked" and not the previous post-Great Society model of welfare.

    Posted by Mask at 09/26/2005 @ 4:35pm

20. Contributions by Proxy

    We should pay close attention to the details for financing hurricane relief efforts. If we're distracted, the money may come from programs to help the poor and the struggling middle class.

    I reviewed budget projects for my home (Seattle), and I offer this conclusion for your consideration.

    We can pay for some of Katrina's costs by rejecting pork spending and instructing our congressional delegation to reallocate this money for the relief effort. Americans of all political persuasions lament "pork spending" – federal tax dollars expended to benefit local special interests. As our compatriots pleaded for food, Congress prepared bacon to serve the folks back home. More than $9 million in pork spending for Washington State should be redirected to the relief effort. It is conceded here that others may find more or less pork depending upon how they value each project. For example, some may find $608,000 for "Jointed Goatgrass" and "Asparagus Technology" important, others may not. Add this to an additional $2,780,000 for the Wing Luke Asian Museum, One World Now!, Museum of Flight, and Experience Music Project and the total is $3,388,000 in pork spending for just these six projects. There are 435 congressional districts in the U.S. If each constituency demands its representative cut at least $1 million of pork spending, there would be nearly $500 million available for near term Katrina relief. Forget guns or butter. Now it's jointed goatgrass or succor.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 09/26/2005 @ 4:40pm

21. This may seem overly simplistic, but so be it: Massive wealth can't exist without massive poverty, the wealth has to come from somewhere. Only when average Americans finally come to that realization can we make a serious attempt to eliminate poverty.

    Posted by Swamptillia at 09/26/2005 @ 4:42pm

22. I'm a Progressive who finds the Bush Administration as despicable as the next Progressive. I've said it a thousand times but this country is messed up because our two party system consists of Right Wing Republicans (who call themselves Republicans) and Centrist Republicans (who call themselves Democrats). What specifically did Clinton do for the poor? What specifically did Clinton do to help the NYC or the New Orleans poor? What specifically did Clinton do to help the poor Native Americans still living on reservations? Wasn't it Clinton who pushed through welfare reform? I don't recall the minimum wage going up much during his eight years. He pushed through NAFTA to the detriment of America's workers. Until populists and progressives occupy the seats of power the poor will continue to suffer. I disagree with John Edwards that there are two Americas. There are four Americas: Rich Whites, Rich Blacks, Poor Whites and Poor Blacks. Bush (actually Rove) to my amazement has created a Republican Party that gathers in the Poor Whites even though it's against their economic interests to be there and Rich Blacks (like Condi and Colin) who relate more to wealth and power than their own ethnicity.

    Posted by billsheasf at 09/26/2005 @ 4:44pm

23. This is the type of bread & butter issue that used to be the Democratic Party's strength. If they can't rack up victories in the next election & get the damn country moving in the right direction, then they ought to call it day as a political party.

    Posted by EnviroVarmint at 09/26/2005 @ 4:54pm

24. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/26/2005 @ 3:23pm:

    YOU GROW UP... I need my momey for my family. Count the number of taxes we all pay and you will find it is more than half of all your income, if you figure in state,local fed, and all the fees. Even Al Gores"lets all hook up the schools to the internet" fee on your cable bill.

    The governmrnt exists because of my money not the other way around, so I would like to teach my neighbor how to fish, not feed him half my fish forever. Think about it.

    You raise a good point, John. After we add up all income tax, payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, luxury taxes etc., then even low-income workers pay a high percentage of their income in tax.

    If we are discussing taxation, then I have some ideas about how to make the tax structure less burdonsome. But since we are talking about teaching our neighbors to fish, let me interject this: That is precisely the reason we should put so much more emphasis on education.

    I think it is a good thing to use taxes on cable television for our children's education. I'd like to go further and create an Apollol-program approach to education in this country, where we are not satisfied until all children in the country have qualified teachers, small class sizes, computer and computer technology access, well-equipped science labs, etc.

    What would the impact be? Would we have more citizens who work and fewer in prison? Would we have more students with valuable technical skills that could get high-paying jobs? Would that reduce the welfare rolls and the costs of our prison system? Would that create more taxpayers, thereby reducing the deficit? Would that grow the middle class? I think the answer to all of these questions is YES!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/26/2005 @ 5:10pm

25. Zero,

    Your response to me was well thought and well written. I can agree with much of what you have written and I respect the serious answer. The poor vagrents on the street need help as do the the some of the single Moms. My wife was a single mom when I met her and I admire the way she made her life work. She is an example to all of my children(I adopted hers).

    Hence my point about generations on welfare, and it is not welfare per say. We are feeding breakfast, lunch, dinner, day care, ect...it just seems to me that all of us are paying for much of other peoples irresponsiblilites. Nobody minds helping out, but what about society actually saying "maybe having babies with no support potential,education, husband,education, man,education, income, education,education,thought,education, or means of any kind" is a ticket to the poor house for you and your child forever. We do not hold the responsible parties responsible and blame some of us who have had enough.

    I am also sick of military wastefullness and corporate malfiecence(sp?). I believe the government is too big to be effective anyway.

    I just can't blame one man or one advisor(Rove) or one party. I am attracked to our forefathers writings and I don't recognize much of what they wanted in our current "interfering in our lives government" or free press being an active arm of the democratic party here.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/26/2005 @ 5:29pm

26. I love Physics,

    The teachers unions and the congressional black caucus would stop you cold. So would aclu, progressives, Hillary, and a miriad of other porkgrams designed to "help the poor".

    They would all loose power and then it follows they would loose there spending ability.

    Good thoughts tho. What is spent on public education in some cities is more than good private schools in others. Maybe we need school choice? Take my school tax dollars with me and let me decide where and what my children learn? Too much freedom?

    Posted by john maasch at 09/26/2005 @ 5:36pm

27. If I may offer a couple of interesting reads on poverty: first I would recommend Studs Terkel's "The Great Divide", published in 1989, then for some really gut-wrenching stories try "The Haves and Have-Nots" edited by Barbra Solomon in 1999, and finally John Iceland's "Poverty In America", of 2003. I've only read a few excerpts from the last one, but it looks interesting.

    Posted by Chuck at 09/26/2005 @ 5:44pm

28. Reducing poverty, with the eventual goal of eliminating deprivation, especially for children who can't choose their parents, depends upon jobs that provide "living wages." As anyone who's earned "sweat equity" can relate, however, the dominant "cat and mouse" social paradigm and chief ostensible "work" metaphor of following "the path of least resistance" absolutely requires individual sacrifice, altruism, and tangible and intangible recognition, i.e. behavioral rewards/reinforcement/incentives, to act as even a nominal counterbalance to the "instant gratification" addicted and socially/intellectually disconnected folk whom Dr. Neil Postman at NYU has lamented for decades.

    We bloggers at KVH's site (thank you, thank you!) are working and creating, in our choir of mutual/group reinforcement/validation. The many millions more, glued to the TV screen right now, would say they're using their "leisure" time as productively (to enjoy what they don't perceive as voyeurism).

    In John Gardner's gem "Words of Wit and Wisdom," the founder of Common Cause and his daughter quote E.B. White (Charlotte's Web author) as saying she's confronted with two seemingly oppossing aims each morning; the desire/motivation to "save" or to "savor" the world. She ends with the dry, "This makes it difficult to plan one's day."

    I don't think I'm too far removed from the other contributers who look to this site as an opportunity, however fleeting, to be published, i.e. have our words, our work-words, validated. Yet, we know too, that our writings/contributions don't quite measure up to the standards of clarity and elegance which professional writers achieve, regularly.

    Bottom line: "Pearls before swine" are of as little use, and are even less desired by the little piggies (read "us") as unsolicited advice; even before NIMBY trumps all good intent.

    LAWMAN

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/26/2005 @ 6:20pm

29. I am attracked to our forefathers writings and I don't recognize much of what they wanted in our current "interfering in our lives government"

    John,

    I share your affection for the writings of our forefathers. One of my favorites is Thomas Paine. This Englishman come American whose writings rallied American public support for the Revolution, was - and I kid you not - a progressive. He was arguably 200 years ahead of his time. He advocated public policies that later became Social Security, child labor laws, and the United Nations. There are many other examples I could cite. I commend to you his classic work, The Rights of Man.

    I respect the personal story you shared. Many of us feel fortunate to have spouses we can love and respect.

    Perhaps what is viewed as interference in our lives by some is considered a safety net by Paine and others.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 09/26/2005 @ 6:27pm

30. This is from MoveOn.org, the republicans are trying to push through money for Katrina/Rita rebuilding BUT they are trying to cut services AGAIN. There is a petition to sign this is word of mouth so if can please pass this on. Thanks

    "House Republicans have called for nearly $1 trillion in cuts to vital national services to pay for Katrina. But we can fully rebuild the Gulf Coast without cutting services Americans need just by ending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Please tell Congress today:"

    Please sign today:

    http://www.political.moveon.org/rebuild/

    Posted by bamnation at 09/26/2005 @ 6:34pm

31. Sorry here is active link

    moveOn.org petition [political.moveon.org]

    Posted by bamnation at 09/26/2005 @ 6:37pm

32. I doubt you will see a widespread embrace of the need to combat poverty on the Right. Remember, "charity" is only acceptable on the Right if it enables people to assume their place at the starting line. Of course, when it comes to that starting line, where on earth is it?

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/26/2005 @ 7:10pm

33. I don't think you can pin all of this on Bush. After all, the American public is enamoured of the idea that people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. The point seems to be that some people don't have any boots to begin with.

    If you want people to manage their money better, if you want them to learn to not spend freely and to save, they need to be taught. If you want a person to believe that he is going to be able to earn a steady living he has to see those around him earning one. It is unlikely that in all of these impoverished communities a bulk of the impoverished are going to have models to follow. Tax cuts might produce growth in certain industries but they do nothing to educate people on how to lead productive lives. I think LBJ had it right when he launched the Great Society and made education his primary tool in combating poverty. Without education, what is money really worth?

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/26/2005 @ 7:14pm

34. HHE

    Here, here....much applause on education as the root of success (not that I am well-to-do mind you) but an understanding of the world will help people make all sorts of better, more-informed, decisions.

    Besides, if I see one more "young Earth" student I may have to be restrained...

    As to the "bootstraps" thing....well, I'm about a year from finishing college. Maybe then I can get some boots!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/26/2005 @ 7:51pm

35. The failure of supply side trickle down economics didn't start with George W. Bush, it started with Ronald Reagan. Actually, the definitive definition of supply-side economic failure was the the Roaring '20s and its result, the Great Depression. Andrew Mellon, Treausury Secretary for Reagan's boyhood hero, Calvin Coolidge and later, Herbert Hoover, put forth the idea that wealthier Americans, if allowed to keep more of their money via tax cuts, would respond by investing in businesses, creating jobs, and boosting the overall economy. Mellon's theories were put into practice by a government in which Republicans controlled both the Presidency and both houses of Congress, incidentally the last time that has been the case up until the present day. Tariffs were kept high, interest rates were lowered, upper-bracket tax rates were cut, and anti-trust laws were not enforced too well. Meanwhile, there was Prohibition, a little something for the "values" and "morals" crowd. Too bad it only served to create a new criminal underworld and make them rich.

    The majority of Americans did not share in the "Roaring" part of the '20s. The biggest change for many was the ability to buy new appliances on credit. Any sense of prosperity from those in the middle and lower classes was an illusion. The increasing demand for goods and the availability of credit created a temporary rise in employment, but this was undone when overextended consumers and investors couldn't pay the piper. Prices dropped, and the consumers who could still buy were far fewer as factories laid off workers who still had credit bills and no income. The stock market crashed, and people who had found it easy to borrow a lot of money to buy stocks on margin learned the definition of "No Vaseline" as their margin calls came due, and they were on the hook for millions of dollars that had only existed on paper. Banks, seeing the loans once made so freely go into default, saw a run from depositors who had seen others lose all of their savings when their banks went under.

    The Great Depression was an equitable result of supply-side economic policy. It didn't work before, and it isn't going to work today. History is repeating itself.

    Posted by highpowered at 09/26/2005 @ 8:36pm

36. This is where I break with conventional wisdom. Poverty cannot be eliminated in a capitalist system period. All machines throughout history have been purpose built. A bulldozer pushes or pulls material,printing presses print, Phones are for communications and so on. Capitalism is a capital accumulation machine that draws capital into ever smaller number of hands. It was never designed to bring global happiness or justice or anything of the sort. Just like the bulldozer or printing press it cannot accomplish anything outside of it's design. Marx has proven this in his very astute observations of capitalism. Economists have given us tools over the years to help manage the effects to a degree however this falls well short as the numbers are simply undeniable. The world wealthiest 300 people hold the same amount of wealth as 50% of the ENTIRE PLANETS POPULATION. Those of us who live comfortable lives may not consider this a priority, perhaps the war on terror is more important or the war on drugs...why the hell do we declare war on all of our problems anyways? Does this actually give people hope that there will be some kind of victory? Enough of that rant. If we look at the realities of poverty around the world and not just within our borders it becomes quite clear that the circumstances that lead to it range far and wide. If you take Africa for example, I saw in post that the having too many children was a cause for ones condition. In Africa there are no social safety nets to sustain parents in their old age. It is only by raising many children who will be able to help provide for them in their declining years that will ensure their survial. Looking back to our own history we can see this as self evident and this is but one condition for poverty, there are many others. One thing that seems to hold true across the spectrum is money or the lack thereof. For one to sustain themselves they need to get some of this back from the wealthy. Trouble is the the wealthy do not want to share this and would prefer to give out as little as possible to the pions that actually produced the wealth that has lifted them to such heights. To destroy poverty is to destroy money. It is the great equalizer of society as all the advantages that are stored up in it are spread across the spectrum of the classes. This means abondoning consumerism which drives the self interest of ones being. I realize that most of you will shun this idea out right as it is too uncomfortable. In this world it is o.k to be selfish, the system demands it so there is no need to feel guilty over it. What you have to consider is your own circumstance and if it is worth sacrificing to help restore the balance to those who have little. We are all prisoners here... some of us just get better treatment than others.

    Posted by spatzle at 09/26/2005 @ 8:53pm

37. All politicians leave office far wealthier than when they entered. Public servants my ass. None of them care about poverty. Only about lining their own pockets.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 09/26/2005 @ 10:24pm

38. On a slightly different note, When I'm in, say NYC (I travel a lot), I will often offer food to the indigents I come across begging for money. I do this to bolster my own feeling charity and to feed like I've made a small difference with my seeming act of kindness. In fact, people want to feel better about themselves when they give; not all but most. Underfunded and/or ill conceived welfare programs are mostly in place to make us feel good about ourselves. Even the playing field (very difficult) and seriously fund education of all kinds (not so difficult) and we could do much more to improve the rate of poverty in the US. Let those who choose to beg appease the personal needs of those of us who give, it makes no real difference. Government money should be accompanied by preformance tests. If you receive tax money, then we must see something for it. Oh, and eliminate Corporate welfare for profit making companies (just thought I'd throw that in.)

    Posted by zhong at 09/27/2005 @ 01:56am

39. "performance" I'm sure I made others :o)

    Posted by zhong at 09/27/2005 @ 02:01am

40. HIGHPOWERED,

    Actually I believe what actually "caused" the Depression has been linked to Hoover following flawed economic policies AFTER the Market Crash of '29....policies that would please many a modern liberal.

    He inacted several government aid programs (many later 'claimed for FDR'), then agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history to pay for them. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%.

    Additionally, to "protect America jobs" he raised the tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) and set off a trade war that further worsened the economy world-wide.

    Lambasted later by Democratic partisans, Hoover was actually following the course that many liberals claim TODAY should be followed....anti-trade, higher taxes, and more government relief.

    All of which made a "stock market correction" into the worst economic disaster in American history.

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2005 @ 07:01am

41. John M

    Republicans DO believe in welfare...but only when its for the rich and corporation entities.

    Feed the Rich...all hail the mighty dollar!

    The poor...why, let them eat cake!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2005 @ 07:44am

42. seattlescribe, many of the policies advocated by Paine, and others, were first instituted by emperor Franz Joseph of Austria and his minister Metternich.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2005 @ 08:52am

43. Hey all....

    I'm sure you folks have seen the latest....to placate the base, the WH is reimbursing "faith-based" charities (churches) for their "volunteer" works as of late. Banana peel on the slippery slope....

    How long before the churches *ARE* the public assistance program making faith-based (Christian) programs a funded state religion. (Kinda like the Hare Krishna hand-outs at concerts back in the 70s...sure you could get some popcorn and an orange...after 1/2 hour of drums, tambourines and Hare-Lama...but the popcorn was tasty)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2005 @ 09:50am

44. In order to understand poverty, you have to be poor. Not for just a day, or a week, or even a decade. Suffer the effects of never having enough to pay all the bills and having your power turned off. Or, try living on the most basic of food stuffs, or going with out a decent meal for a few days until your paycheck comes from your near-minimum wage job. Poverty is very depressing. But, listening to rich people tell us that lower wage jobs will boost the economy is even more depressing. Hearing politicians offer more assistance from the government is not what the working poor want to hear. We want decent wages that will allow us to pay our own way. You see, I worked for 30 years at jobs that never paid enough to cover all the costs that I had to pay for. If it had not been for a stroke of luck, I would not have the means to send this e-mail on my own computer. But, luck is not what it take to cure a wide spread problem. I am not rich, and never sought to be. I just want to earn my own way so I won't be dependent on other people. Poverty is having to rely on others. I am still living on the edge, but I do not have to worry about living off of others. I don't believe that anyone in government is really concerned about poverty. The cure is so simple. You have to be looking at poverty with closed eyes to miss it. The fact is that curing poverty is as easy as spreading the good fortune out. In my case, it took luck. For the rest, it means government and business would have to take honest steps to increase the incomes or reduce the cost of living a basic life. But, you can't understand what you refuse to understand.

    I have an Idea! Raise taxes on corporate profits, and use that money to supplement small business labor costs. The working class will pay more income taxes, small business will profit more. The whole nation would benefit.

    Posted by jimni at 09/27/2005 @ 10:28am

45. My problem with this article is that it completely ignores the Left's responsibility in exacerbating this problem as well. The Left has been unable to extract it's own dogma from discussions about issues like illegal immigration. In their misguided attempt to make illegal immigration solely a race issue they have ignored its negative impact on the very people you now seem so concerned with. As an African-American I'm aware that illegal immigration has negatively impacted my community more than any other. Yet, the media, and especially the Left side has continued to ignore those very facts. Not only have you ignored them you all tend to call anyone who confronts you with this issue as a racist. Technically Mexicans are white, they also comprise the largest portion of our illegal population. Our history is one of amalgamation, and the Left needs to own up to its part in perpetuating it. If you don't think that illegal immigration has an effect on our workforce you haven't been to a road construction, sub-division, landscaping, restaurant, or hotel in America. When hundreds of thousands of jobs are not available to the poor and working-class it only follows that poverty and an increase in our prison population would be the net result. Add to that the decrease in social funding you have the perfect party mix for a recipe for destruction.

    Posted by desneeflakes at 09/27/2005 @ 10:54am

46. Good posts, Jimni, et al! With Capitalism our de facto economic model which, at this stage, none of us would desire sabotaged, right?, because, after all, even with oppression's history acknowledged, more folks are in the middle class in the world today, than ever before.

    The key distinction, to me, is related to the old sayings: "there IS such a thing as TOO MUCH of a good thing," "the Good IS THE ENEMY of the Better," and "familiarity breeds contempt" (thanks Ben Franklin for at least one of them, methinks).

    The key personal decision affecting personal responsibility, day in and day out, is the choice between "self interest' and what I term "enlightened self interest." Enlightenment, through education of oneself and resultant self-discipline, usually leads to altruism and more meritocratic procedures in all arenas.

    In fact, IMO, our current "imbalance" is an indirect but telling indictment of our education system's ability to foster/promote "higher order critical thinking skills" in our young who two frequently assume an immature, socially Darwinistic "me first" posture.

    Competition's good, except at the extremes. And it's the extremes of wealth and poverty, truth and propaganda, war and peace, which we see exemplified today with advocates of each side knowingly or unknowingly polarized and incommunicado before our values affirming teles.

    LAWMAN

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/27/2005 @ 11:00am

47. Leftofcenter, thanks for the kind words. I really believe that education is integral to anyone's success in any field. Why is it radical to suggest that poverty is about ignorance rather than laziness? By ignorance I mean innocence: Innocence of effective means of self-betterment.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 11:23am

48. Libsarenutty, do you agree with what Hitchens saw? Did you actually see the protests yourself?

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 11:25am

49. Hitchens makes a convenient dodge; he fails to talk about how our committment in Iraq is a diversion from collecting the "loose nukes" around the globe. I seem to recall that the cause celebre for Iraq was procuring the WMDS. Well, how can we be effective in pursuing loose nukes if we are tied down in a conflict that pushed us in the wrong direction in the first place? To Hitchens the protesters may be "on the side of the vermin" but to the rest of us they are advocating that we get our priorities straight. I think finding weapons of mass destruction makes more sense that trying to create democratic colonies in areas where we have a poor understanding of the history.

    What do you think? And when I say "you" I don't want you to quote someone else's article in your reply.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 11:29am

50. Hitchens is also wrong that Michael Moore and George Galloway are leaders in "the movement." How can they be leaders when the event was a wide swath of groups and private citizens gathering to express their concerns. Where is Hitchens getting his ideas? Who in this country looks to Galloway, a British MP, for leadership? And Michael Moore, an entertainer? That is the equivalent of saying war protesters turn to Sean Penn for political advice.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 11:31am

51. WMDs

    Yea...how's that WMD thing going by the way? Maybe its those toxic camel turds they were referring to.....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2005 @ 12:10pm

52. Bush's scorched earth policy towards the poor is as effective as the liberal hand out approach. One seeks to destroy the poor by placing them under repressive policies (i.e. tax cuts for the rich, low wages), while the other keeps their attention focused on a declining pool of government entitlements whose policies often destroy families (i.e. no welfare if your husband lived with you). What both fail to do is focus the energies and attention of the poor on improving their plight. While this will be a difficult task, getting the poor to understand that education and not music videos ought to be a priority will do much more for them than liberal "the-government-will-save-you" approach.

    In Atlanta, for example, Morris Brown College, admittedly poorly run, needed $21 million dollars to fix its problems and keep its accreditation. That same weekend the funds were needed, the movie Drumline opened to a $21 million dollar first-week debut.

    We, as progressives, cannot continue to sanction astoundingly dumb decisions by individuals facing economic and social challenges. We know the times are tough...there is no question about that...but how many libraries in poor neighborhoods are reporting that too many people are coming in for books and reading? There are many more examples. Yet, the point is simple. If the poor start making better decisions, their lives will be better. That is the only way for the poor to effectively combat racism, police brutality, healthcare and educational inequalities, and a host of other problems. The government has shown that it has no intention of doing so. It is insanity at best, and a subtle form of racist low-expectations at worst, to keep the poor focused on an entity that only 2.5 centuries ago had many of their forefathers in chains.

    Posted by BlitzPackage at 09/27/2005 @ 12:12pm

53. Left of center,

    As a republican, or should I say conservative(Bush is NOT a conservative, look at his spending) as they are different in many ways,I do not believe in corporate welfare of any kind. I don't even believe in mortgage deductions. I have more of a tax the consumtion of products and not the income view. In my opinion, this forces all people to pay something. You can always twint the mechanics of rates.

    As all school children know, corporations do not pay taxes. All taxes there are passed on as cost of doing business. Taxes actually INCREASE the prices of goods all of us must pay for everything. This hurts the poor as well. Gas taxes being the most obvious. Drop gas taxes and how much would we be able to drop the per gallon price?

    Earning the dollar is not an inherant evil, after all, all dollars "chasers" pay for all the programs you want funded.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/27/2005 @ 12:26pm

54. It's easy for George Galloway to speak truth to someone else's power.

    But, for my money, he's more fun than a barrelful of bushisms.

    Posted by drhammer at 09/27/2005 @ 12:32pm

55. John M

    What many progressives would rather see than "programs funded" is a more equant perspective of labor value. Do CEOs *really* need/deserve 700% increases in wages over time spans when people working for the bottom of the same company see increases of a mere fraction of that, or worse...they are laid off (while the CEO gets a pay raise). Do actors, sports players, and other celebritys REALLY deserve the multi-millions they receive for contracts? Sure, some jobs deserve more than others...and those who do a "better" job relative to others should have an incentive, but many jobs remain unsung. Such jobs could not, or would not be done except by people who receive very little to do them. Yet we ultimately DO value the service we receive from them. HERE [ctj.org]

    My point is that are concept of equity is seriously stilted in our country.

    but a small BTW; Why then do GOP conservatives support Dubya (because as you correctly point out....he is a spend-aholic?) Is it the religious thing? Or the fact that he just ISN'T a Democrat. I don't get it.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2005 @ 12:44pm

56. I believe(GOP Conservatives)they support him based on he is better than any of the others out there syndrom(sp). Kerry?,Hillary?,Dean!!!

    They see no alternative, nor will they support McCain. 2006 will see republican gains all over the place. House, Senate, atleast 2 maybe 3 more Court judges. The country is right of center right now. 2008 will be interesting. I think if the Ruplicans put up a carismatic speaker with a conservative bent, he will win in a landslide. I also believe that Bush is a dyslexic, and has a horrible time reading and speaking. It does not mean he is incapable of thinking as the left wingers costantly claim.

    My son is dyslexic and I recognize symtoms in Bush syntax,....all this has resulted in one copmplete constant..

    He is always underestimated and he always comes out on top in the end.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/27/2005 @ 12:53pm

57. I'm struck by the number of personal stories here, it beats the heck out of all those dry references to other people's research.

    The main reason I am a liberal is that I was once poor. It's not the desperation or the deprivation that gets you. It's the helplessness. And I could care less what pointy headed theorists think about it - the thing that breaks you out of it is when somebody gives you some help. Nobody wants to be poor. I think it's the height of arrogance to say people are poor because they make the wrong decisions. They make their decisions based on what they see in their immediate environment, just like everyone else. The key is to change something in that environment. Put something good in, take something bad away. But relying on the miracle that a poor person will spontaneously see the light and straighten up is much worse than the curse of low expectations. It's just condemnation. If you're the sort of person who can live with that, that's you. I can't. Since I have a life to live, I rely on contributing to charitable organizations, so they can act on my behalf. And it's fine with me if one of those happens to be the government. Lord knows I contribute enough to it.

    And another thing. I really liked Drumline.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/27/2005 @ 1:02pm

58. John M,

    There are a significant number of people toward the upper end of the income spectrum who don't produce much of anything. They come to work and pretend like what they do means something more than just placing themselves in the middle to sapp the system.

    LOC,

    I find it ironic that a CEO can get a raise for laying off breadwinners when in fact the reason they needed to be let go was the result of miss-management in the first place.

    Posted by zhong at 09/27/2005 @ 1:31pm

59. "All taxes there are passed on as cost of doing business. Taxes actually INCREASE the prices of goods all of us must pay for everything."

    This is a choice corporations choose to make. They could choose instead to lower their profit margins rather than raising prices. Consumers would respond by purchasing more of their product, and NET revenues would increase. A corporation whose tax rate increased from 25% to 30% would only need to increase sales by 7% to make up the difference in their net profit.

    Posted by 9patch at 09/27/2005 @ 1:32pm

60. "I think it's the height of arrogance to say people are poor because they make the wrong decisions."

    Yup. This is the US of A, where anyone can lift you up out of your dry hole by your bootstraps, where you can make all the mistakes you want and still end up rich and powerful...

    Posted by drhammer at 09/27/2005 @ 1:32pm

61. Still no word from Libsarenutty.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 2:01pm

62. Probably looking for a Limbaugh piece to post.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 2:01pm

63. As all school children know, corporations do not pay taxes. All taxes there are passed on as cost of doing business. Taxes actually INCREASE the prices of goods all of us must pay for everything...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/27/2005 @ 12:26am

    I WISH all schoolchildren knew this. I think too many people, young and old, don't know enough about economics, and personal finance for that matter. Too bad so many of them have to learn the hard way, by getting into massive debt in their twenties and spending a decade or more climbing out of the hole.

    Maybe economics should be a topic in high school.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/27/2005 @ 2:28pm

64. ILP,

    I was in high school in the late 70's. We took economics where they taught us that when you put money into the hands of the lower and middle classes. They will spend most of it, thus stimulating the economy. Now they put credit in those peoples hands and so they spend that way instead. A economy based primarily on credit operates on borrowed time. I call it the Lottery Mentality. The American dream has changed from work hard to get what you want, to get something for nothing. It is pervasive now from the top to the bottom of our system. Get it now, work later and pay for it, maybe. (maybe you'll win the lottery!) And of course, somebody is taking a big cut every step of the way.

    Posted by zhong at 09/27/2005 @ 4:03pm

65. Poverty in America

    It tugs at ones heartstrings, brings images of food lines homelessness. These things exist and all Americans can and should do something to help those less fortunate than most.

    But Katrina and many of those posting comments here want something else entirely different. The want to introduce at least another leap forward in the Socialist direction this country has been going down since the days of FDR and his Socialist wife Eleanor.

    To promote this goal, Katrina utilizes a tactic employed on numerous occasions, lie or distort the facts. Bush did not say In his September 15 speech to the nation, President Bush asserted that poverty in America is mostly restricted to the nation's Southern states. Like a lot of right-wing ideologues when it comes to issues of race and poverty in America, he's in denial.

    Here is what he actually said:

    "Our third commitment is this: when communities are rebuilt, they must be even better and stronger than before the storm. Within the Gulf region are some of the most beautiful and historic places in America. As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality. When the streets are rebuilt, there should be many new businesses, including minority-owned businesses, along those streets. When the houses are rebuilt, more families should own, not rent, those houses. When the regional economy revives, local people should be prepared for the jobs being created. Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive … not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons – because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/15/politics/main851262.shtml

    Katrina also repeats the well worn mantra of the left about Reagan and Reaganomics. The truth is something entirely different, as follows:

    Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues doubled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion.

    Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase

    Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995.

    Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

    Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989.

    Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years.

    Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent.

    Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent.

    Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply.

    http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

    Now, to address some other issues within this topic.

    Hunger: In truly poverty stricken nations (and I have visited a number of them), hunger is one of the real indicators of serious poverty. But here in the United States, obesity is our greater affliction. 2/3 of Americans are overweight and 59 million are considered obese.

    Medical Care: No person in America is denied urgent medical attention. You can enter any emergency room or urgent care center and be treated even if you have no means of payment.

    Employment: While it is true that in the urban inner city areas and in some rural areas of America, jobs are tight, there are many cities and states with a shortage of people to fill jobs. In Riverside County California and Las Vegas Nevada (to name two) the unemployment rate is around 3 percent. That is considered by economists to be full employment.

    Do not misconstrue my input here as pollyannish, conservative spin, or uncaring. As I stated in the beginning of this post, those who are truly living in poverty need our help. One family we help is a single mother from Mexico living here. She speaks no English, has 12 children and lives in a 500 sq. foot studio apartment. She earns only $40 dollars a day working too many hours on a mobile lunch truck. But she is illegal, proud, and afraid to even try and get aid (unlike many who do so). She is not all that unrepresentative of a good portion of the more than 3 million illegal aliens coming into the US each year.

    If you want to reduce poverty, we need to first of all address this critical issue and it's effect on assistance to US citizens. In Los Angeles County, 80 percent of all Medi-CAL births are to illegal aliens.

    A link from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services' website … instructs 'immigrants' to access many of the public services forbidden to them by federal law.

    On the department's website, 20 welfare- and social services-related programs are listed as being available to "immigrants." They include food stamps, housing assistance, childcare, job and educational assistance, as well as state-funded health care benefits under a program called Medi-Cal.

    http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/homepage/immigrant_info.cfm

    L.A. County tries to convince immigrants "they can access cash benefits to which they are not lawfully entitled because … the cash benefits aren't really cash benefits."

    "Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits," says information on the L.A. Department of Public Services website. "The purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance but rather to avoid the need for on-going cash assistance for income maintenance; therefore, they are not subject to public charge consideration."

    So, I agree that we should all work to end poverty, but let's do it by attacking some of the most immediate causes that we can address, illegal immigration and massive government programs that only perpetuate a culture of victimization and expectation that Government exists to take care of those who won't take care of themselves. Again, not everybody falls into these categories, so I am not and neither should anyone else generalize.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/27/2005 @ 4:06pm

66. All,

    Where are the Democrats on this issue? Whoever asked that question surely jests. Democrats can't lead on this issue because they themselves are bought and paid for by the corporate elite big money interests that keeps the GOP in power. Howard Dean, until he sold out, had the right idea of raising money from small donors and not wealthy interests. He had much support until he came up with the ridiculous idea of repealing the entire Bush tax cuts, which would have hurt the poor and middle class. As Ralph Nader so elegantly put it, until the Democrats stop taking corporate money they will never overcome their deficit in government and rightwing interests will continue to rule the nation from on high in Washington.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 09/27/2005 @ 4:22pm

67. seattlescribe, many of the policies advocated by Paine, and others, were first instituted by emperor Franz Joseph of Austria and his minister Metternich.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/27/2005 @ 08:52am | ignore this person

    Kudos to the Habsburgs. However, the point of the posting was a shared affinity for the "writings of our forefathers." I take your point to be that Paine was only 100 years ahead of his time (European implementation), rather than 200 years (American implementation) as I posited.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 09/27/2005 @ 4:27pm

68. Love Liberty,

    Apparently you don't love liberty enough. People like you always rail that social programs for the poor is socialism while you excuse and totally ignore corporate welfare which has done more to advance the cause of socialism in this country than anything else anyone could ever think of. Can you say "Farm Bill"? Those subsidies to big agri-corporations are more dollars than any welfare receipients could ever dream of being "handed". If you can explain this then nothing else can be said:

    Can you explain why Scottie Pippen, former teammate of Michael Jordan, who received more than 67 million dollars from playing NBA basketball, was on the list of patrons and who actually received a farm subsidy of over 167,000 dollars? Explain that, Mr. I can't stand socialism to the rest of us "nimrods" who only want those who receive gov't cash and benefits from programs who are poor to remain "victims"?

    People like you really crack me up. John Stewart of the Daily Show couldn't be any funnier than you right-wingers.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 09/27/2005 @ 4:30pm

69. Love Liberty,

    Apparently you don't love liberty enough. People like you always rail that social programs for the poor is socialism while you excuse and totally ignore corporate welfare which has done more to advance the cause of socialism in this country than anything else anyone could ever think of. Can you say "Farm Bill"? Those subsidies to big agri-corporations are more dollars than any welfare receipients could ever dream of being "handed". If you can explain this then nothing else can be said:

    Can you explain why Scottie Pippen, former teammate of Michael Jordan, who received more than 67 million dollars from playing NBA basketball, was on the list of patrons and who actually received a farm subsidy of over 167,000 dollars? Explain that, Mr. I can't stand socialism to the rest of us "nimrods" who only want those who receive gov't cash and benefits from programs who are poor to remain "victims"?

    People like you really crack me up. John Stewart of the Daily Show couldn't be any funnier than you right-wingers.

    Posted by POSEIDON 09/27/2005 @ 4:30pm

    Obviously poseidon you have never read any of my posts on these subjects. I am also against corporate welfare and have so stated.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/27/2005 @ 4:53pm

70. Love Liberty, you did not include Poverty in your list of things Reagan made better. Can you document that poverty decreased as a result of his policies? It would be more than a little disingenuous to bemoan poverty while throwing out numbers from an eight-year span when everyone but the poor became much better off.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/27/2005 @ 4:57pm

71. Love Liberty, you did not include Poverty in your list of things Reagan made better. Can you document that poverty decreased as a result of his policies? It would be more than a little disingenuous to bemoan poverty while throwing out numbers from an eight-year span when everyone but the poor became much better off.

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 09/27/2005 @ 4:57pm

    In terms of Real Change in Family Income for the Poorest Quintile (those making less than 10,000 annually):

    1973-1981 minus 5%

    1981-1989 plus 6%

    1989-1995 minus 3%

    I don't have updated figures readily available for this conversation. The importance of the other 2 data points is for a strict analysis of before and after.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/27/2005 @ 5:06pm

72. Questions:

    If Bush and the Republicans are so bad for Americans in general and minorities in particular, why is home ownership continuing to rise for both African Americans and Hispanics? Why are the number of minority owned businesses increasing? Why did Bush get a 30% increase in the African American vote in 2004? Why did Bush get a 7-9 percent increase in the latino vote (using the lesser numbers put out by the National Council of La Raza, a liberal Hispanic organization)? A 20% increase in the senior vote? And nearly captured the womens vote.

    http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/28217/

    You can produce all kinds of polls to show dissatisfaction. I prefer to see what is really happening in America and the indicators shown above tell me that the US is becoming a fairer nation even as it's unmatched prosperity continues.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/27/2005 @ 5:51pm

73. Love Liberty, you make a good point about the poll numbers but I am wondering what the Katrina effect will be on the GOP? They are looking pretty parlous right now.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 5:54pm

74. The "faith" thing will only reach so far. Poverty seems to be the new hot topic and this has not been a strong topic for the GOP. However, I certainly am not going to laud Democratic efforts over the past 25 years in that area either.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 5:55pm

75. Love Liberty, you make a good point about the poll numbers but I am wondering what the Katrina effect will be on the GOP? They are looking pretty parlous right now.

    Posted by HHEMWM 09/27/2005 @ 5:54pm

    HH,

    Polls may be one of the most tranistory reflections of our national sentiment that is used, abused, and misunderstood in all of politics.

    In the case of Katrina, that is especially true. They are already being mitigated by the fact that things went much better with Rita and that the oil fields and refineries did not suffer significant damage. If Bush is successful is promoting real economic revitalization in NOLA and other hard hit areas, the public will swing with the tide. Add in an expected announcement between Thanksgiving and Christmas of troop reductions in Iraq and Bush and the Republicans will have regained the big "MO". It can also completely fall apart. That is what makes politics fun.

    As to the next election, polls will be more closely examined and reacted to beginning in late spring of '06 by the political handlers. The only thing they do with them now is to get media time. Given that economic, political, social, and military events are in a constant state of change, anyone who concentrates on today's polls is not a true political student (which I'm not accusing you of being). There are a number of people on this site who do react excitedly about recent polls, but it actually reveals the lack of political awareness I cite here.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/27/2005 @ 6:33pm

76. Politics: the art of the possible.

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/27/2005 @ 8:15pm

77. Love Liberty, you are correct about polls being very transitory. But there is also the question of "perception." We know that the Bush Administration was able to create a lasting perception of itself in the days following 911. This perception carried over for the rest of the 1st term but many now think that it has been punctured to the point of being lost. I am not sure that with the rising frustrations over Iraq and the consequences of Katrina regularly appearing in the media that Bush will be able to reconstruct the image of competence and leadership he once wielded so well. Of course, the other shoe has to drop and that is whether or not the Democratic opposition is able to exploit this change in the public's perception of Bush. When I say exploit I mean offering some type of alternative reconstruction program that will be publicly contrasted with the GOP plan.

    As to the polls rebounding, I have not seen any yet that demonstrate that the president has come out of his recent funk. But here is an interesting article to consider: Why Baton Rouge is Still Bush Country. This appeared in the Outlook Section of the Sunday Washington Post. I recommend it, there is much insight there Sorry I do not know the link.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/27/2005 @ 8:23pm

78. egad! I regret that I must agree with LOVE LIBERTY's 6:33 post about polls.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/28/2005 @ 12:22am

79. Bush repeatedly billed himself as a "compassionate conservative". He is neither compassionate, nor conservative. Compassion means "deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it". Bush has never been poor and he doesn't associate with the poor, so he has no concept of what it is like to be poor. He understood how the people of Iraq were suffering and he wanted to relieve that suffering. While his method of relieving that suffering is questionable, he knows nothing of the poor in the United States. We need to take care of our own before we start trying to take care of others.

    Conserve means "to protect from loss or harm; to use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste." The only thing Bush has done that can be described as conservative is protecting the United States from further loss or harm from terrorists attacks, at least that is his intention because his methods are questionable. However, he approves a bankruptcy bill that isn't compassionate because it makes no exceptions for how someone arrived at the point of bankruptcy. His biggest backers of the bankruptcy bill are creditors who freely give credit to people who have not demonstrated a sufficient ability to pay, or who give interest-only mortgages or equity loans for far more than 100% of the value of their homes - where is the responsibility of the creditors? By his silence on that issue, Bush says that they have no responsibility in this matter. The creditors can prey upon people who lack the knowledge or the common sense to keep themselves from getting into financial trouble. They become financial slaves.

    He has increased government spending and debt by far more than the taxes he cut. How is that conservative? He isn't conserving anything. How is it compassionate to leave this debt to anyone, especially our children? Having such debt leaves no room to incur expenses for emergencies or to leverage long-term, financially productive goals for our nation.

    If this is Bush's view of being a compassionate conservative, then I'm glad it's compassionate because if he were a hard-nosed conservative I would hate to think what that experience would be like.

    Posted by jsc at 09/28/2005 @ 02:49am

80. ILP

    Agreeing with LL? Egads, I'd better blip over to Weather.com and check the reports in hell! (Although I suppose statistically it was bound to happen...)

    Zhong

    re: CEOs, etc....Exactly! Yet many do not perceive a problem. Sure an occasional CEO really tanks and spends a couple months in a Federal country club prision, but there is no sense of reality, nor accountability at that level. Maybe its that they are so high up, the rarified air depletes their mental capacity.

    John M & anyone else wanting in on the thought

    It just seems very odd that while Bush has done little to help the poor, and in fact may actually be doing things to make them worse off over time, and that many of the poorest segments of the economy are in the rural areas and especially the rural south, that these are the very areas that vote heaviest for them. Perhaps this is where the left gets the perspective of these regions not being "smart"? Its seems to be a case of we don't know why you feed the hand that slaps you...?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/28/2005 @ 10:29am

81. HHEMWM

    Still no word from Libsarenutty.

    Shhhhhh....maybe it fell asleep. Or better yet, maybe it saw something shiny and followed it far away....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/28/2005 @ 10:31am

82. BAMNATION

    Bush as ever the dupe, the idiot, the Charley McCarthy to Roves' Edgar Burgen.

    I suspect that both Rove and Cheney keep a supply of those *really* long plastic gloves that dairy farmers & vets use.....how else would they get their hands far enough up to work the mouth right!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/28/2005 @ 11:28am

83. For those who trust the free market so much, here is one reason why many on the Left do not:

    Linked text [moneycentral.msn.com]

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/28/2005 @ 2:10pm

84. In his book "Bush On The Couch," Dr. Frank quotes Bush: "I don't understand how poor people think." Thus, psycho-president and his administration's best efforts to turn Amerika into a banana republic are completely understandable, and have made substantial headway. Even so, if we are lucky enough to survive the duration of his tenure, history will remember Bush for: (a) 09/11/01 - "My Pet Goat" decisiveness and the fact that he essentially slept away the first eight months of his Supremely-appointed presidency...What's Islamic terrorism? (b)Iraq - a/k/a Bush's lying folly, charged to Amerika's Chinese-Japanese credit card, (c)Katrina & Rita - "My Pet Goat" response revisited, and (d)Amerika sold out to the corporatocracy and Amerika's W-2 wage slaves left holding Bush's BIG BAG OF #*%!

    Posted by Vronsky at 09/28/2005 @ 2:39pm

85. As long as Bush and his crew (or of their ilk) run the Ship Of State, America's poor are, to quote Mr. Dylan: "...on your own, with no direction home, like a complete unknown..." Except of course in the aftermath of hurricanes when the cameras are focused on them. Then, at least, they are not unknown to America. Gotta hope "that the times, they are a-changin'.

    Posted by Vronsky at 09/28/2005 @ 2:55pm

86. LL wrote:

    "Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years."

    That makes no mention of the QUALITY of the jobs. QUANITITY of jobs does not necessarily bode well for the lower and middle classes, although quanitity usually bodes well for the upper class, especially the wealthy.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2005 @ 3:59pm

87. LL wrote:

    "Do not misconstrue my input here as pollyannish, conservative spin, or uncaring. As I stated in the beginning of this post, those who are truly living in poverty need our help. One family we help is a single mother from Mexico living here. She speaks no English, has 12 children and lives in a 500 sq. foot studio apartment. She earns only $40 dollars a day working too many hours on a mobile lunch truck. But she is illegal, proud, and afraid to even try and get aid (unlike many who do so). She is not all that unrepresentative of a good portion of the more than 3 million illegal aliens coming into the US each year."

    On a thread from last week (maybe two weeks ago), LL went on and on about how parents in America should home school their children. LL felt the need to add that a representative sample of the illegal alien population has 12! children. Who's fault is that? Ours? Or hers for not using protection? Or hers for not realizing she cannot afford 12 children?

    Funny how the bastions of "personal responsibility" are fine with illegal aliens being "proud", but poor Americans, especially black poor Americans, need to stop being too prideful to take minimum wage (or lower) deadend jobs.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2005 @ 4:10pm

88. URMY

    Hell yes...I've got 2 and a 1/2 PT jobs so I count as three jobs I bet! George'd be SOOO proud of my accomplishments! Makes me a growth statistic...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/28/2005 @ 4:53pm

89. We should all do our patriotic duty and volunteer to becoe temporary employees, so we can be even more expendable than regular at-will employees. There's nothing like exploiting the number of jobs temp workers take each year to boost the job growth numbers. A temp worker who works for numerous agencies is counted as a success by this administration. Now that's something to build on - the seasonal worker industry.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2005 @ 5:06pm

90. I'm confused over various uses of the term 'liberal'.

    -Since when did 'liberal' become a term of abuse in the USA? which I hesitate to remind, was constituted on the tenets of liberty, in particular from its colonial mother-country.

    -Since when did 'liberal' implicate left-wing or proscriptive thought? Recent German and Polish elections show the liberal FDP and Civic Platform groupings to be the most pro-trade and anti-tax of the lot and both have indicated a preference for alliance with traditionalist 'conservative' groupings.

    The confusion over the descriptions of the political divisions existing between all our fellow citizens does nothing to raise the level of debate. So neither will reference to the prime exponents of the syntactic and linguistic muddle (eg 'Dubya'). What is needed instead, is to be able to relate the truth of reality and not the propaganda, gossip and spin of those with corrupting vested interests that lead inextricably and inevitably to conflict.

    Neither do constant sensationalizing "War On..." headlines help clarity any. War is the manifestation of violent conflict between unequal situations and if perpetuated, even in name only, will only cause to heighten this inequality.

    So not even a metaphoric 'war of words' would help. Perhaps "Concerted Action Against..." may hit the mark, but that would require consistency and coherency of policy, a trademark of a confident, assured politics not beholden to any individual constituency or greater power (ie. not dependent: free, liberal) and not currently offered by the establishment Republican and Democratic parties.

    The idea that wealth only exists in the face of poverty is a fallacy and, again, is a product of repressive (ie anti-liberal) thought, emphasising either real or relative evidence rather than balancing each against the other: Are today's obese poor not richer than the starving poor of the past?

    The traditional liberal analysis places the failure of US policies at the door of the low electoral participation. It is also in agreement with the principles and practices of the Founding Fathers (Paine was previously cited).

    When 50% of citizens are so disenfranchised and demotivated to not consider engagement with the democratic procedures, whose governing mandate they nevertheless legitimate, can there be any surprise that they become dissident.

    If American politics really wanted to take positive steps, it and it's politicians could, it would be easy and it would be beneficial to everyone.

    At minimum the establishment of credible balancing political forces is the next necessary step - and there has been considerable, if sporadic movement toward this, such as third candidates and the activist desires to base funding on membership and individual donation as stated previously. Yet this runs contrary to the mutual back-scratching of current corporate mentality.

    I would also recommend the thoroughly liberal policy of self-participation through education and democracy. Such participation leads to responsibility of action and increased motivation through insight into comparative successes and failure.

    Any debate on relative poverty is wrong because it fails to recognise the levels of real poverty. Do people in the hurricane disaster zone need more care than the tsunami victims? The correct debate would be to understand the basic universal standards and ensure that they are provided. Period.

    Americans and citizens of all countries must come to realize that Marx was not correct, that the prime political motivator is not Capital, since this is not universal and it is certainly not equal, but that the first influencing factor on each of us is our Humanity, our individual, personal/private/spiritual lives.

    Until the polarised bi-partisan system of the flawed US democracy collapses into civil war, authoritarianism or is reformed to attract and integrate dissident voices, it will continue to aggravate with its aggressive posturing, and we will continue arguing over the lesser of two evils.

    Posted by thomaskust at 09/28/2005 @ 5:29pm

91. URMY

    Apparently we are all supposed to aspire to the Sat Nite Live "Haitian Family" skit...."I got 15 jobs Mon! How bout you?"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/28/2005 @ 6:23pm

92. Leftofcenter, I think Libsarenutty has always been asleep.

    Posted by hhemwm at 09/28/2005 @ 6:58pm

93. It just seems very odd that while Bush has done little to help the poor, and in fact may actually be doing things to make them worse off over time, and that many of the poorest segments of the economy are in the rural areas and especially the rural south, that these are the very areas that vote heaviest for them. Perhaps this is where the left gets the perspective of these regions not being "smart"? Its seems to be a case of we don't know why you feed the hand that slaps you...?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/28/2005 @ 10:29am

    I used to work an old guy who said "The good folks get drunk, stumble to poles and vote dry"

    Posted by zhong at 09/29/2005 @ 04:06am

94. "the polls" sorry, I never could spell very good.

    Posted by zhong at 09/29/2005 @ 04:16am

95. Peoole living in poverty are the fastest growing segment of our population. More and more people are losing out to higher gasoline prices, grocery prices, and lower food stamp awards. If you are on the lower end of the economic strata, inflation is running between 30 and 50%. The cheaper brands of food at stores are disappearing and the house brands have raised their prices about 30%. The minimum wage is not anywhere near a living wage. Both parents have to work, and many of them have to work two jobs. AND IT IS GETTING WORSE BY THE MINUTE AND NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

    Posted by elhouck at 09/29/2005 @ 8:47pm