Poverty in America: No Keener Revelation

[JeffR]

"There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children." – Nelson Mandela

By Mandela's measure, America's soul is sick.

While the poverty rate among all Americans is currently estimated at about one in eight, among those 18 and younger it is about one in six.

To put the numbers in more concrete terms, consider this: the number of poor children in the United States is greater than the combined populations of New York and Los Angeles.

And every 33 seconds, a newborn American takes his or her first breath in poverty.

In Mandela's terms, the Children's Defense Fund 2008 annual report is indeed revelatory. Among its findings:

753 white babies per day begin their lives in poverty, along with 794 African-American babies and 956 Latino babies.

Nearly six million children in the United States experience extreme poverty, defined as being a member of a family whose income is below half of the official poverty line. That poverty line, of course, is widely considered outmoded and inadequate as a measure of real poverty.

Nine million American children have no health insurance. In Texas, which fares worst among all 50 states, 20 percent of children are uninsured. Nationwide, 20 percent of Native American children and 20 percent of Hispanic children likewise have no insurance coverage.

Among industrialized nations, the United States ranks 22nd in low birth weight rates and 25th in infant mortality.

In 2007, 12.7 percent of children in the United States received food stamp assistance. The number has risen each year since 2000 and the coming of "compassionate conservatism" to Washington.

The percentage of American children experiencing homelessness in a given year is estimated to be anywhere from five to almost eight percent. In Illinois alone, 25,000 children annually are homeless.

As "bail-out" fever sweeps Washington, it's time to put poor children at the top of the priority list.

Please contact President Obama and demand action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Phone: [phone]

A mere eight states are home to more than half of poor children in America: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Texas.

Contact information for the Governors of these states follows:

17.3 percent of California's children live in poverty

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Web contact form:
http://www.govmail.ca.gov

17.1 percent of Florida's children live in poverty

Governor Charlie Crist
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Web contact form:
http://www.flgov.com/contact_form

19.7 percent of Georgia 's children live in poverty

Governor Sonny Perdue
The Office of the Governor
State of Georgia
203 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web contact form:
http://gov.georgia.gov/00/gov/contact_us/0,2657,78006749_94820188,00.html

16.6 percent of Illinois's children live in poverty

Governor Pat Quinn
Office of the Governor (Springfield)
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: [phone]
TTY: 888-261-3336

Office of the Governor (Chicago)
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, 16-100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: [phone]

Web contact form:
http://www.standingupforillinois.org/contact/

19.4 percent of Michigan's children live in poverty

Governor Jennifer Granholm
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone] - Constituent Services
Fax: [phone]

Web contact form:
http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995-65331--,00.html

19.4 percent of New York's children live in poverty

Governor David Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Phone: [phone]

Web contact form:
http://161.11.121.121/govemail

18.5 percent of Ohio's children live in poverty

Governor Ted Strickland
Governor's Office
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6108

General Info: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Web contact form:
http://governor.ohio.gov/Assistance/ContacttheGovernor/tabid/150/Default.aspx

23.2 percent of Texas's children live in poverty

Governor Rick Perry
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Web contact form accessible through this page:
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact/

This essay reposted in full by permission of peoplesing.org

[NanceGreggs]

1. These stats are truly mind-blowing ...

What have we become as a nation?

:kick: :kick: :kick: and REC'D!

[dajoki]

46. Even with overall poverty at its highest...

The poverty rate increased for children under 18 years old (18.0 percent in 2007, up from 17.4 percent in 2006), while it remained statistically unchanged for people 18 to 64 years old (10.9 percent) and people 65 and over (9.7 percent).

And these are the Census Bureau's numbers, so you know they are light, simply because they have been using the same formula since 1964 to set poverty rates.

[mediaman007]

2. Outstanding Resource! I just sent one of the pages to my conservative

connections, who worry that the wealthy may disappear.

[JeffR]

23. Remarkable how much more the wealthy are obsessed over by the media

than the poor. Until that situation is reversed, it's hard to see anything changing for the better.

[southerncrone]

3. We have 6 times the homeless kids in our school system this year compared to last year.

This in a semi-rural, bedroom community of a large city. Things are getting bad.

[JeffR]

25. Depressing but not surprising.

For all that the situation has been dire and worsening for years, I have a feeling that next year's Children's Defense Fund report is going to show a terrifying jump in the numbers. If George W. Bush is still in search of his legacy, a big part of it will be found there in black and white...

[southerncrone]

39. Not only in black & white figures, but in living technocolor.

His legacy is the ruination of the nation.

Obama will need to be a miracle worker. I'm hoping he is.

[JeffR]

47. "Ruination" nails it. I worry sometimes about how many things

might be beyond repair. I hope fervently that child poverty isn't one of those things.

[southerncrone]

54. I still can't believe we're talking about poverty in 2009.

The imbalance of wealth distribution over the last 30 years is more than a crime; it's a sin.

I hope the greedy assholes, who schemed & lobbied to make sure they controlled vast amounts of money specifically to keep others down, rot in hell for all eternity. :nuke:

They have siphoned off the wealth of this country & stashed it in overseas accounts, all while shipping our natural resources overseas to China, to manufacture goods using child labor & selling the goods back to us with huge markups, which they pocketed.

They have abused children world wide, not just here.

May the Universe exact absolute justice upon them. Karma is hell.

[JeffR]

56. Seconded.

If anyone had told me in the late Sixties that we'd still be talking in 2009 about solving poverty (along with CAFE standards, health care for all, racial issues, food safety, bloated Pentagon budgets, the War on Drugs and all the rest) I'd have laughed.

[southerncrone]

64. Me, too.

However, if we'd been able to see into this future, I fear we'd have reacted quite differently.

All the energy that was invested then in progressing this country forward was negated in 1980, and we have been on a steady track backwards IMHO. Our nation in many ways is much less tolerant now than in those days. Even here in the South, it was a gentler time.... Vietnam War & all.

[JeffR]

66. Too true.

As a Southerner watching the South now from a long way away, I can't help but think a certain madness has set in that just wasn't there, even at the height of the struggle for civil rights. Or if it was there, it's true extent was kept hushed up even by the most vocal extremists of the era. And of course the madness extends way beyond the Mason-Dixon line.

[southerncrone]

69. I feel the roots of this mean attitude lie, ironically, at the feet of the "Christian" churches.

The Evangelicals, Fundamentalist & Pentecostals.
I've noticed that even the main-stream Protestant Churches, like the Baptist, Church of Christ, and Presbyterian are also becoming more closed-minded & adopting the us vs. them attitude.

This "Warriors for God" movement is a paradox to me, but they are wrapped up in it as much (& with the same fervor) as they are the "Super Bowl" & NASCAR.

[JeffR]

71. In great measure, I think that's true.

The fundie POV has become a weird witches' brew of xenophobia, ignorance and paranoid delusions. My Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, if she's still alive, would blanch at what her faith has come to stand for, I believe.

[mntleo2]

87. The madness continues in classism ...

...and I am *not* saying that racism does not figure into this madness, but I am saying that racism has gone underground and has been "replaced" by classism as an excuse for racist and sexist policies. It is the way of keeping the "status quo" by pretending racism and sexism is gone and not the "issues", that racism and sexism is not the problem of our society, but that poverty is the individual problem of women who "choose" poverty.

Let me try to demonstrate how it worked:

Welfare came out of Social Security as a way to give benefits to (mostly) women who were under 65 and had lost their husband's incomes by abandonment and refusal to support the family (like pay child support). But until the 1960's most welfare benefits were given to white women citizens. When women citizens of color began to sign up for those benefits in the 1960's and 1970's, well that was when suddenly welfare became a "concern". You will notice that the subtle picture of welfare recipients was of women of color, even though to this day, welfare recipients are predominantly white women ~ but in reality they are all poor women. When Reagan spoke of the "Welfare Queen" (which he later admitted was not a true story), he never mentioned color, but it immediately brought up the image of a black woman and epitomized all women as "lazy" for raising a family on their own.

Even though it was less than 4% of the budget at the time, Welfare DEFormed was written with the demonization and image in mind of black women as the face of the "lazy" welfare recipient, and grouped into that all poor women were freely punished for being poor and having the audacity to want to raise their families with support when they had no other resources to turn to. Welfare DEFormed was written by Robert Rector, a rich white man of the predominantly rich white men's club, the Heritage Foundation. He wrote this bill after meeting some DC women who were going to school and raising their families on welfare. Worse, they had fled the Virginia small towns to come to DC to do that! Oh no! What Rector preferred to ignore was, these women had fled communities where they had little hope of EVER going any farther than working in "the big house" as domestics, a tradition that had been ensconced since Thomas Jefferson never freed his slaves ~ even his beloved slave Sally Hemmings who bore him 6 children and only two of his sons that he reluctantly freed. Oh he wrote of the wrongness of slavery! He wrote about the importance of "freedom" ~ until it applied to his own slaves and the women he supposedly loved but refused to acknowledge. These women were STILL living that nightmare 250 years later as so-called "freed" American citizens in the 350 year old communities they lived in. Lord help them that they fled that place to find an education and a step up so they could work for wages that would give their families comfort! That was reserved for a white MAN, certainly not some uppity WOMAN, especially a BLACK woman!

You will also notice that the so-called "solution" to women in poverty was for the conservatives to allot 1 billion dollars to marry off welfare women. This "solution" was with the attitude that, if women would just marry some "wallet with legs" why their problems would vanish! It is also based in this racist, sexist attitude that women somehow need a man to "succeed".

In Vermont, they decided to give women who had court ordered child support the amount that had been ordered even if the father did not pay. It significantly lowered the poverty rate among women who had it ~ but the caveat there is that, only 40% of women who had to turn to welfare had court ordered child support, and the ones who had to turn to welfare were women whose fathers refused to pay it. It did give the state an iron glove to collect those funds more diligently.

In Venezuela, the stay-at-home parent is actually paid a wage for the work they do. This is because the work is valued and seen as a contribution to society.

Welfare DEFormed was a classist, sexist way by using subtle racism to denigrate women's work and codify into law that women's work does not nor should not count, that this work is not doing anything toward the betterment of our country, which is an outright lie. It encompasses ALL women's work with that codification into law that the work of raising a family and working without pay is "doing nothing". It is saying that "womens work" that we have done in almost all cultures worldwide is not worthy of our society's support and using classist racist images to do so. It is an outright war on women.

If we truly want change and to end the madness, we need to call out the sexism and racism with the demonizing of the poor of ALL races. I think it has to begin in people of poverty finding their commonalities and then uniting with so-called "credible" advocates (because nobody will actually listen to the poor, but they will sometimes listen to a well educated person if they don't make them into a kook), to call out our government and society as to what they are doing. By the rich especially keeping their feet heavily forced upon the neck of the poor and convincing the middle class that the issue is "not racist", they encourage open hatred and fear of the poor with the middle class ~ and their own wealth continues with the poor paying their way.

While I will say my view of the history I have just described might be "opinion" as to the light it is viewed, it is still true history. I am not sure what other conclusions can be made from what has happened ...

Does this make sense to you?

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[maryf]

92. Your two cents worth 2 billion!!

"I think it has to begin in people of poverty finding their commonalities and then uniting with so-called "credible" advocates (because nobody will actually listen to the poor, but they will sometimes listen to a well educated person if they don't make them into a kook), to call out our government and society as to what they are doing."

I would say many will listen to the poor when they shout with a voice of one as you ask for here, (and I know you know that many poor are very well educated, which is where the work needs to truly begin, IMO), so whats the first step in uniting these people? the divide and conquer strategm has been so strong, how do we break it down??

[mntleo2]

99. Recently I spoke to a group of legal immigrants ...

...what perked them up was when I pointed out to them we have commonalities that we need to find with one another. We have families with children we are concerned about, we are discriminated against (and while this discrimination is for different reasons, it is still discrimination that causes us all to be left behind), that we can reach out to one another in spite of our differences and find where we are alike and that can be a good beginning. As a white women and natural born citizen, I hope this had some impact ...

One of the surprising concerns to me was with their concerns about reaching out for help. Unlike what I thought, they were not so concerned about Immigration swooping down and taking them away if they sought say food stamp assistance ~ though that IS a valid concern. It was about asking for services and if they did, it would sabotage their path to citizenship. It turns out this is a very real and serious concern.

The "commonality" I saw there was in the "sin" of reaching out for help. God forbid!

In short, I think one way to create a community of people together is reaching out to communities we are not familiar with and asking them to join us. We will learn some surprising things. and then it is finding the commonalities with their concerns with ours.

This won't mean things will change tomorrow. But it will mean that if we are willing to keep an open mind and ear, we will find the ways to begin the work of uniting for common good.

I will be speaking to a large group of social workers in April. They work state-wide with low income and immigrant communities that are very diverse ~ Americans, Africans, Russians, Eastern Europeans, Asians, South American communities. We natural born Americans already have our citizenship and being born into it as commonalities to work from there. It is not easy, I am not saying that it is easy to find commonalities with each other even those of us who are born citizens, but it is a little easier and it is being done already ~ Hispanic, African American and whites who are banding together to create a unity for change. How do we include even more people? Well, what do we ALL have in common? I would say it begins with recognizing among ourselves the "elephant in the living room" is in our poverty/discriminations/children/families that our country refuses to acknowldege ...it is the beginning to call it out among ourselves. Then turn to the bigger society and tell them what we see ...

That is what I see anyways ...

Love
Cat

[maryf]

102. You see very well, Cat!! Very important post!!

Hope others read this post and your others as well, such important stuff here!!:yourock: :loveya:

[bobbolink]

158. It begins by offering SUPPORT to poor folk, and strengthening them in their

self-confidence.

[JeffR]

113. Sexism and racism are a large part of this issue

and yet another reason, IMO, why we are reluctant to talk about poverty anymore, because that discussion leads to some very unsettling truths about what sort of a nation we really are.

Thank you, Cat.

[Two Americas]

120. great work

This is excellent, Cat. Thanks.

[bobbolink]

155. CLASSISM is INDEED the issue now! Yet, where is it on the agenda at all???

Certainly not in the Dem party..... or "progressives" in general.

People feel perfectly free to say denigrating things to me because of my poverty that they wouldn't DARE DREAM of saying to black, gay, or any other "minority". And certainly not to muddleclass folk!

It's tolerated right here at DU, and if I had begun to forget that, a thinly veiled threat I received in a post a few days ago was certainly a reminder. And NO amount of alerts would persuade those in charge that it was not only a personal attack, but a rather frightening one, at that.

Yes, CLASSISM is accepted. And therefore alive and well.

[Art_from_Ark]

150. I fondly remember Great Society commercials on TV

especially the one that ended "Don't fence me out!" (set to the tune of "Don't Fence Me In"). And then there was the one about the little boy who woke up in an empty home every morning and had to get everything ready for school by himself because his single mom was already at work. The gist of these commercials was "We CAN make this a better society!" But they all seem to have faded away as soon as the '70s came along :cry:

[Raksha]

137. You're not the only one!!!

If anyone had told me in the late Sixties that we'd still be talking in 2009 about solving poverty (along with CAFE standards, health care for all, racial issues, food safety, bloated Pentagon budgets, the War on Drugs and all the rest) I'd have laughed.

Even though it isn't the least bit funny.

[bobbolink]

156. We simply have to face the fact that we ALLOW poverty.

And, no, it's not "funny".

[bobbolink]

157. "I have a feeling that next year's Children's Defense Fund report"

Never fear, it will be blamed on Obama and the Dems.

:grr:

The worst part is, some of that will be JUSTIFIED!!!

:nuke:

[Still Sensible]

4. Incredible and eye opening

K & R

[liberalmuse]

5. The "Greatest Country in the World"...

would never allow this. I deem this unacceptable. Why does a fetus garner more passion than a living, breathing, starving child?

[JeffR]

26. An excellent and very troubling question.

Unacceptable is precisely the right word for this horror story.

[tekisui]

6. knr!~

[leftstreet]

7. But...but...America, Fuck Yeah!

Wait, what?

K&R

[BlooInBloo]

8. This is the 2nd most important domestic issue for Obama, imo.

[Two Americas]

138. the only issue

Politics is about power and economics, who has access to resources and power and who does not. Poverty is a result of the economic injustice and imbalance of power in the country, as are all of our problems, which are variations of poverty - the denial of power and resources to people.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Horrifying, sickening, OBSCENE.

These statistics prove our poverty of ideas and insights and goals for our country!

I am proud to :kick: and recommend!

[JeffR]

27. "poverty of ideas and insights and goals"

Exactly right. That's the deepest poverty the poor suffer from now.

The nation has failed these children. Our right to consider ourselves not merely civilized, but a beacon of civilization, is completely forfeit for many reasons, but this has to be at the top of the list.

[mntleo2]

124. and let us not forget the adults in poverty because ...

...they are often the ones taking care of the children, tho I would also say that childless adult poor also should be considered. They are our vets and potential workers who could be giving to our society if they had the support.

For instance, and I am not trying to equate mental illness with poverty here, I am just saying that the magic word that is synonymous with success is S-U-P-P-O-R-T ~ and it seems to be across the board in almost all situations. If a woman is faced with being a single parent, when family is able to step in and support her until she can get on her feet ~ and then continue to support her with things she is not able to do (such as be in two places at once to care for her children while she works), she does much better ~ and when family is not able to support her and then community steps in so she can get an education and a better job ~ and continue to support her with things she cannot do (such as be in two places at once), she does much better. If someone has no place to live, and is addicted to alcohol or drugs, simply providing them with stable housing actually reduces crime, addiction issues, and health issues begin to improve. I was reading somewhere that, schizophrenics in other parts of the world who have family support are actually functioning citizens ~IF they have the support ~ and they do not even require the medications that Western people who are mentally ill do, as a matter of fact they actually do BETTER than people here on medication. If they have families who surround them and protect them, these folks will marry, work for a wage and are contributing family members.

If we give support it actually costs less than if we do not. However poverty is also an industry now. Amazingly SOME people actually get and stay rich from poverty (or added to their already overflowing coffers). Until they let go of their hold on all their lame "answers" to poverty, which do not work and which in reality only keep themselves in wealth, well we have to say poverty WILL be an issue. But that is just one barrier ...

M<y 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[angrycarpenter]

10. I've seen lots of poor kids in Florida.

Working class wages are very low there and health insurance is a rare thing. In Franklin county they had to levy a 1% sales tax just to keep the small, badly equipped hospital open. Most of the time there is not even a receptionist at the front entrance.

[JeffR]

28. And of course sales taxes are infamously regressive

and will hurt poor people in Franklin County.

The sad ironies continue to pile up.

[Beaverhausen]

11. This kind of information should be in the news nightly

I think I will email Rachel about it. This might be something she'd cover. It's important - I think a lot of progressives don't realize how bad it is out there for children.

[ulysses]

12. the fact that it's not

says a lot about a lot of us.

[mediaman007]

15. That's why corporations took control of the media. In the 60's the media

actually reported on situations like this. Like someone said, "Truth has a liberal bias."

[ulysses]

17. even so,

only the folks who *never* leave their bleached, gated suburbs can really fail to see poverty and its effects.

[TahitiNut]

18. Amen.

It's a national humiliation -- soul destroying.

:cry:

[JeffR]

31. Damn right.

Too damn right.

[JeffR]

30. The national mobilization against poverty used be a pillar of the progressive

movement. We self-professed leftists have become very quiet on these issues over the past few decades while those on the right have done their damage, aided of course by complicity from centrist, corporatist Democrats. I'd love to see Rachel or any progressive in the mainstream media start talking about these issues and keep talking about them until millions of people get angry enough to insist that child poverty, all poverty, be ended.

[bobbolink]

159. Only "child poverty"? What becomes of the rest of us???

Thanks for changing that, Jeff, but you MUST know how painful it is to be ignored and discounted.

If we are TRULY not important, then it's time to give us the pills so we can exit this mess!

[Mira]

13. This is our future population. Terrifying. Thank God there is a new wind in the land

and we must double our efforts to help and lend it direction and strength.
Kick and Recommended for all to read.

[JeffR]

32. That's the crux of it, Mira.

Amid this new yearning for change and disgust with the state of so many things as they are, and with a President who embraced the idea that it's way past time to change course, poverty issues have to put on the national agenda and that will only happen, if it happens, with grassroots pressure, constant and unrelenting pressure.

[tosh]

14. I see this.

My home county in Georgia has a rate of 40.5% of persons under the age of 18 below the poverty level, so 2 in 5.

Things are decidedly worse now than when the 2000 census was taken.

The local leaders-for-life are Bush/Cheney-like in their indifference and callousness. The state level rethugs are worse with their greed.

We are counting on new policies at the national levels to MAKE THIS RIGHT.

Thanks, JeffR, for this post.

[JeffR]

35. Thanks, tosh.

I smiled without any humor as I added Sonny's contact info to the post. He and his ilk not only don't give a tin crap about poor people, they want more people to be poor and they do their level best to make it so.

[blueraven95]

16. k&r

:kick:

[malaise]

19. Shocking statistics

K & R

[scarletwoman]

20. k&r -- The "richest country in the world", and what do we spend our money on?

Bombing Third World villagers. :mad:

sw

[JeffR]

38. And if the regressive mindset could figure out how to do it,

they'd be bombing poor people Stateside.

[prairierose]

21. Every time that one of the...

religiously insane starts yammering about this being a christian nation, this is one of the things that I think about. Children living in poverty and abuse. This alone shows the world that we are a soul sick nation. And the fact that the corporate media refuses to cover stories like this allows people to continue to lie to themselves about the truth.

There is a guy I know who was in the peace corps in Africa. Occasionally we get into discussions on this or similar topics. I keep saying that I want to live in a civilized country. He keeps saying this is a civilized country but what he sees as civilization is electricity and running water and the wealth of this country. I see civilization as a place where people are taken care of even if they are poor, or uneducated or disabled. Where they are not allowed to be homeless and hungry and go without health care. Where people including children are valued and not just thrown away with some flimsy excuse that the rich and the banksters need their tax breaks and bonuses.

[Tindalos]

70. The individual vs community

One of the main problems, imho, is an overemphasis on individualism. Too much attention has been focussed on developing the individual, at the expense of family and community. The ties that bind us together have frayed/broken. Many no longer see any value in the people around them. Those who got rich think they did it by their own actions, and so they don't feel the need to give anything back. They don't realize that they couldn't have succeeded without the help of their neighbours. We need to rebuild our communities, get involved, and talk to our neighbours again. It's possible to have a civilized country that has amenities and cares for its people. It may be difficult to balance everyone's needs, but it can be done. Probably the biggest obstacle is changing people's attitudes and convincing them that poverty is everyone's problem.

[Two Americas]

75. good post

Thanks.

While we should not minimize the problem of individualism, we should also not over-estimate the challenge in overcoming it and be discouraged. A Pew Research study showed that only abut 12% of the people are primarily motivated by individualism and the acquisition wealth. The rest of us are being involuntarily coerced into that. That percentage seems about right to me, because there are about 9 people out of every ten I talk to who are disgusted with the "every man for himself" ethic and the mad pursuit of wealth, the difficulty of just trying to live peacefully and securely, and the ongoing destruction of family and community. Only about one in ten is thriving and thinks it is all just hunky dory, and many of them are not doing all that well, since they are not immune from "bad luck" - (it isn't "luck" when people are being intentionally exploited for the benefit of the few.)

Most people are fed up. But they lack direction and focus and understanding, they don't hear a strong alternative message, and are confused and frightened. That is where our job is - the power of concepts and words to help people focus and understand the source of their frustrations should not be dismissed.

[Tindalos]

98. It's good to know that most people aren't in it for themselves

Certainly we need to get the message out. That 12% shouldn't be allowed to ruin everything for the rest of the world. I suppose that is why we're not supposed to talk about poverty. When people talk, they realize they have a lot in common. All face similar challenges. Today's problems (both domestic and global) are not going to be solved by working alone. We need to work together.

[Two Americas]

130. it is a lie

If we think that "human nature" is to be grasping and selfish, and that it is inevitable, we are over-awed by the scope of the challenge, and then are led down the futile and time-consuming path of trying to improve human nature, and away from organizing and fighting back on political terms. We see our neighbors as the enemy instead of those who are oppressing us, and so we are divided and conquered.

We can see this pseudo-religious approach all through modern liberalism, with the talk of "personal values" and "enlightenment" and "personal improvement" and "be the change you wish to see" and "visualize the results you want" and "make the right choices." That is all religion masquerading as politics, and prevents finding common cause and building solidarity and fighting for ourselves and each other. If our job is merely to improve ourselves - and many modern liberals will argue that self-improvement is the only way to achieve social progress - then we are taking a cowardly and irresponsible stance that abrogates our duty and our obligations to each other and to future generations. "I am busy improving myself here, and becoming a more righteous and superior being, so please do not interfere with that important internal process I am engaging in by presenting disturbing truths to me that upset my balance and peace of mind. If we all focus on our own belly button lint and find inner peace, then and only then will there be peace in the world." Talk about people who have been rendered completely impotent and useless!

Politics is about improving the conditions under which people are forced to live. We fight back together, not through individualized self- improvement strategies. Religion is about improving human nature. I favor a separation of religion and politics, and clarity about which is which.

[bobbolink]

160. NOW you're singing my song! MOst of this can be laid at the feet of our damned RUGGED INDIVIDUALIS

So many want to blame churches, but it's our RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM that is at the root of most of this!!

My brain is a blank, but a famous French author wrote this in the 1800s, and said it would be the DOWNFALL of the US.

How true is that??!

[Tindalos]

186. The instant we stop identifying with the Other, we lose ourselves

When we fail to see that someone else (the Other) is like us, then we lose our connection to them. The Other can be a friend, family, a co-worker, even a stranger we pass on the street. How we interact with these people shapes who we are. Not what stuff we own or what we have achieved. We would be and have nothing without help, guidance, and support. Focusing too much on the Individual dehumanizes the Other. Those who refuse to recognize the contribution Others have made to their lives will feel little compulsion to help them in return. Yet, none of us are truly alone. We are all connected in one way or another, whether we like it or not. Giving back should be part of who we are, because it is part of how we got here.

[WilliamPitt]

22. K&R

[Gregorian]

24. I believe the best way to eliminate poverty is with good education.

The hopelessness of poverty is one of the big reasons why we even have government. With better schools we can win that in two ways. A population of creative people with a psychology of hope.

Spend the money on education instead of military. We all win.

[leftstreet]

29. 'Psychology of hope?' How about livable wages?

:shrug:

[JeffR]

40. And affordable housing.

But education, too, is important. I can't pretend to know how a psychology of hope could be measured, but a decent education should be the right of all Americans, poor ones included. I've lost the reference now, but when I was researching this, I ran across something to the effect that 79% of homeless children in the US are still attending school. What they're getting out of that is a different story.

[Gregorian]

44. I know this thread is about immediate help. I tend to look far ahead.

Obama signs this bill on Tuesday, if reports are true. The lust for money has driven the poor of this country down farther than the rest of us. And there is little doubt that any education they're getting is poor. Our standards have fallen sharply in the last few decades.

On the positive side, I know Obama is empathetic with this fraction of Americans.

Thanks for caring.

[JeffR]

49. The long view is very important with this too, definitely.

I think it's been demonstrated time and again that raising education standards in Third World countries is one of the soundest public investments that can be made. The same dynamic should apply in the USA.

[JeffR]

37. It would be a huge step.

There's not a nation on earth that could invade us and hope to prevail. Meanwhile, as reflected in all sorts of metrics, our schools no longer measure up to the education standards of many countries we tend to sneer at.

[conscious evolution]

129. Tell that to all of the college grads

I know who are either unemployed,underemployed or unable to get work in the fields they spent years being 'educated'for.

[Gregorian]

147. Please don't take this as being a smarty.

But my original thought when I posted was thinking about someone in that kind of position. Well, I'll admit that being an engineer I have a fairly good chance of starting a business that makes something. Whereas someone in sociology might not. Although, they may. Such as writing a book. What I mean is that with an education one has a good position and mentality in which to begin something. I have never liked the idea of being at an employer's mercy for a paycheck. And I've managed to do it somehow. I roofed houses for a few years.

But yeah, you have a good point. To be honest I'm rather pessimistic about the future of the human being. Tonight I keep thinking of a phrase that many would find offensive. The human is a sexually transmitted disease. I guess I'm saying that we might have made our own disaster, and we may be in for some rough times.

[bobbolink]

161. I have a GREAT education. I'm poor. Next.

[Tindalos]

33. How very unforgivably sad

The rich have so much and, despite all the promises, things have only gotten worse. What happened to working towards a better world? Solving world hunger? Did all of that really mean nothing?

[JeffR]

42. Sad thing is

for some of the wealthiest among us, a better world actually requires poverty for many. As was pointed out loudly and often in the Sixties, the problem is the System. It's designed to shaft the poor.

[Tindalos]

51. Looks like it's going to get worse

Just finished reading this post about global droughts.

Catastrophic Fall in 2009 Global Food Production Here

Looks like food is going to get more expensive/scarce. This couldn't happen at a worse time. Many can't afford to eat now.
It's only going to get harder for people to make ends meet.

[JeffR]

52. That's chilling.

It's all too easy to see what this might lead to.

[Tindalos]

60. Isn't it?

Things could get very bad. It feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner and just realized there's no way out. I'm still hoping all of this can be fixed but it's not going to be easy.

[JeffR]

62. I've always refused to accept the idea that we're collectively doomed

through our own actions, but it's getting harder and harder by the day to maintain that refusal.

[Tindalos]

65. I'm the eternal optimist

Some days stretch optimism to its limits, but I refuse to give up. I'm increasingly thankful for my parents' and grandparents' lessons on how to survive rationing and making do with nothing. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's good to be prepared.

[JeffR]

67. The limits of resilience are tested daily for the poor people I know.

That will probably also be the case soon for many of us who are not poor now.

Never seen a convincing case that optimism is a bad thing. It's just hard to hold onto sometimes.

[Tindalos]

72. True

Resilience has carried me through some rough times in the past. Some days it turns into a burning anger. Other days it's just plain orneriness; an unwillingness to let Them win. Sometimes it's just the need to roll up my sleeves and get the job done myself if no one else is going to do it.

It helps to have someone or something to hold on to.

[JeffR]

74. It does.

The urge to survive brought our ancient ancestors out of the trees and spurred them to walk upright. And our own species self-awareness is trying to teach us that we all fare better when we work together. We can do this. Whether we will, I don't know, but we can.

[bobbolink]

162. The SADDEST thing is that we're "sad". We should be ENRAGED and FIGHTING!!!

[Two Americas]

183. enough with sad, maybe?

Poverty does not just happen by some accident or something. It is sad when a rock falls on my head. It is not sad when someone throws a rock at me so they can steal from me.

"Sad" is what we get about things to which we have surrendered, things about which we can do nothing about.

Notice that no one here ever tells us nit to be sad, and then portrays that as merely a personal unpleasant emotion and gives us advice as to how to get rid of it so we can go back to being slap happy dappy la ti da numbskulls? Happy happy happy. That kind of self-indulgent and shallow "happy" in the midst of this nightmare is insanity, not mental health.

But people will tell you to not be angry about what is happening, to not be determined, to not be "radical," to not be "obsessed." They will tell you to "adjust" to it and to make the best if it and do the best you can. "Making the best if it" would be fighting for the well being of others, dropping all of the petty and self-centered concerns and start screaming in outrage and putting everything at risk - since it is already anyway - and fighting, not adjusting. Fighting now - not worrying about the right way to fight or the right time to fight. Now, with all we have. We can't waste time on sadness.

There are things to which the sane response is anger, sadness and depression. There is something seriously wrong with people who are not feeling those emotions. Those emotions do not exist in a vacuum. What sort of people could be "adjusted" while others are suffering so terribly. Nor is it sufficient to merely feel these emotions. We don't stand by passively and watch a child drown and merely feel sad about it. How is this different? Do we say to ourselves "oh I don't know how to solve drowning children" as an excuse? Do we say "there are different opinions?" Do we say "these things take time?" Do we say "don't get me wrong, I care about drowning children, but...?" Do we say "well hopefully Obama will save the drowning child, if we all get behind him?" Do we say "oh well children have always been drowning, and as sad as it is what can we do?" Do we say "I donate to the drowned children fund" or "I voted for the politician who is against drowning?"

How is this different? Why is our reaction so different than it would be if we saw one child drowning?

What is truly sad is not the conditions, it is our passivity and paralysis and unwillingness to fight back.

[Tindalos]

196. It's hard to fight every day

There's no other choice than to keep fighting, but it takes its toll. I refuse to live my life in anger and I don't need to be happy. What I am is disappointed. The world was supposed to be very different than how it is now. There was so much potential and it's all been thrown away. That's what makes me sad. Losing what was already gained. Those living in poverty have to keep fighting the same battles over and over. I haven't given up. Sadness isn't surrender. One can be sad and still driven towards a goal. I'm fighting harder than ever because we're sliding downhill faster than we advance. That's not a rock they're throwing at your head, it's a landslide. And they've already robbed us.

[bobbolink]

200. Gonna hafta disagree on this one. ANGER is an ENGINE. ANGER gives energy.

Disappointment is stagnant.

You and I agree on so much, but on this I disagree.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of those (not you!) who tell me "don't be angry". Bullshit.

If Jesus could overturn tables in the temple and throw a general shitfit, I can sure as hell express my anger at horrible prejudice!

[Tindalos]

202. Anger can be channeled into good

I totally agree that anger can be an engine. It can be the fuel needed to keep going. It can also destroy. It's the destructive anger that I avoid, if that wasn't clear in my post. I tend to be a very quiet, unassuming person. Maybe people misinterpret that as passivity or resignation. That is far from the truth. Anger is only useful if it is focussed. When allowed to burn uncontrolled, it can hinder more than it can help. Anger doesn't have to be expressed through shouting or grand displays (although I love the image of Jesus throwing a shitfit!). Anger can also be a source of determination and strength. One does not have to yell to be heard.

[bobbolink]

203. It's been popular to denigrate anger now for a long time in the US, contradicting all

psychology.

THAT'S why I stand by what I said.

ALL oppressed people are angry, and trying to get them to passify it is destructive.

I will continue to stand up against that.

[Tindalos]

204. Yes, passification is destructive

I wasn't suggesting that you (or anyone) stop being angry or standing up to them. There is nothing wrong with anger. Or any other emotion. As you say, we are all told repeatedly that emotions are bad things. Don't complain too loudly or express too much emotion. People are supposed to be "mindless sheep", as a teacher of mine said. However, even a pissed off sheep can break someone's leg if it decides to ram them. People are finally starting to speak out and, not surprisingly, many of them are angry. Those with power/money have screwed all of us. Anger against them is justified.

[bobbolink]

205. I've been told all my life to be afraid of my anger. I refuse to do so anymore.

I'm not going to break your leg or anyone else's because I'm angry.

It's time we stop telling people to be afraid of anger. It is DESTRUCTIVE to oppressed people.

I'm also not afraid of the righteous anger of other oppressed people.

And I'm not responsible for their fear of me.

[Two Americas]

209. yes

Those who are doing fairly well have no need to get "upset" or raise their voices. They can get their way through "peaceful" means because they have more resources, and because they win when things stay the same.

The slave owners - until the mid-1850's - were much calmer, much more reasonable and practical, much more soft spoken, much more polite and courteous, much more balanced and centered, much more enlightened and peaceful than the slaves and the Abolitionists were.

[bobbolink]

214. Your point about the slave owners being more calm, less angry is very astute.

Thank you for this.

It's time to learn to automatically turn the tables on some of these untruths.

Thank you for showing us how.

[Two Americas]

207. this is great

Thanks Tindalos for the great discussion.

It is not the fight that wears us out, it is the stress, and the stress comes from being isolated and invalidated and from trying to go two opposite directions at the same time.

Yes, one may be sad and still driven towards a goal. Wanted to make sure we were talking about that and not surrender. Thanks.

Now - on the bleak prospects of success. The struggle is its own reward. Many things will immediately improve in many ways once we start to fight. We may not win, but we die with our boots on - together, engaged, alive.

The feeling that the challenge is too big and the discouragement that we can never succeed comes from the relentless pounding we are getting from people who are saying "you will never win, it is impossible give up, it is hopeless."

Here is the proper response to that: "Fuck you. Win or lose we are going to fight, because it is the right thing to do and because if we are going down, we would rather go down swinging than whimpering."

Who knows? Even if we lose, maybe our example inspires and encourages the next generation of fighters. In the meantime, we stand on our own two feet and stop crawling and begging. That is a better way to live, win or lose.

[bobbolink]

199. Amen.

:applause:

[Blue_In_AK]

34. K & R

[dajoki]

36. The numbers are staggering...

and like you said, because of outmoded poverty statistics, are most likely undercounted. One of the stats that caught my eye is that only 12.7% of poor children recieve food stamps, which I'm sure are not enough for well balanced meals. But what do the rest of the poor children do? Even with te wrong stats the numbers don't add up, too many children and their families recieve no government help at all. Such an embarrassment for the richest country in the world!!

edit to K&R

[JeffR]

43. Yes. We delude ourselves into thinking we're a great country

because we don't have millions of people starving like some parts of the world do. And yet malnutrition and poor nutrition are endemic for millions of American kids, leading to developmental problems and illness on a scale unthinkable when LBJ declared War on Poverty.

Four short decades, and how far we've fallen, how mean we've become.

[dajoki]

41. report shows the severe, long-term economic costs of children living in poverty...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Recession-Induced-Child-Poverty-Cost/story.aspx?guid=%7B21C1E8E1-B37D-49A0-A6AD-0ADDE8993187%7D

PRESS RELEASE
Recession-Induced Child Poverty to Cost U.S. $1.7 Trillion in Economic Loss
Last update: 4:00 a.m. EST Dec. 16, 2008

WASHINGTON, Dec 16, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- New report shows the severe, long-term economic costs of children living in poverty.

A new report has found that the United States will suffer a future economic loss of over $1.7 trillion if the current recession drives an additional 3 million children into poverty, as has been predicted. That amounts to a yearly loss of about $35 billion dollars per year over the lifetime these children.

The report, entitled "The Cost of Doing Nothing," was released today by First Focus, a bipartisan children's advocacy organization. The report analyzes the costs of childhood poverty, including its effects on lifetime earnings and health outcomes. Research indicates that children who spend more than half of their childhood in poverty earn, on average, 39% less than the median income. Furthermore, a poor child loses approximately a quarter of a million dollars worth of "health quality" over the course of their lifetimes. By aggregating these long-term effects across the millions of poor children who are projected to fall into poverty as a result of this recession, the report produces a baseline estimate of the economic costs of allowing additional children to become poor during a recession.

"If we do not act now, the current economic climate will lead to millions more children living in poverty, which will cause a severe economic loss for our nation's future," said Bruce Lesley, President of First Focus. "When children enter poverty at a young age, their ability to achieve the American dream is diminished. They are 13 times more likely to remain in poverty for several years after the recession ends, leading to adverse effects on lifetime earnings as well health outcomes."
The report looks at the particularly severe ramifications that stem from numerous childhood years spent in poverty. The report finds that more than half of children who fall into poverty during recessions are likely to remain in poverty for at least some time after the recession ends. In fact, about a quarter of children who suffer from recession-induced poverty will spend at least half of their remaining childhood in poverty.

"Our findings show that recession-induced poverty has a lifelong effect on our children. Moreover, we know that poverty during childhood leads to severe, long-term economic costs. Therefore, there is a significant economic benefit to acting now to prevent the child poverty rate from skyrocketing. Indeed, if we can just maintain the current child poverty rate, the US economy will benefit by at least $1.7 trillion over the next several decades," Lesley added.
In August, the U.S. Census Bureau released data showing that the number of children living in poverty in 2007 has already begun to climb, reaching its highest rate in a decade. The Census shows that in 2007, 13.3 million children were living in poverty.

The report can be found at http://www.firstfocus.net/pages/3533.
First Focus is a bipartisan advocacy organization that is committed to making children and their families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions.
To learn more visit www.firstfocus.net
SOURCE First Focus

http://www.firstfocus.net

[JeffR]

45. Bingo.

Quite apart from the moral outrage that child poverty stirs, there's the fact that over the long term, it's economic suicide for the country as a whole.

And even the most cold-hearted Social Darwinist should be aware enough to make that connection. Thanks for the link.

[dajoki]

48. I find it amazing...

for the government to know that they could help poor children and also do something about our economic future and yet fail to act. What has become of us? And how much farther will it or can it go?

[JeffR]

50. I really think it either changes now or it will never change.

Based on nothing more than intuition, I think we've reached the same sort of tipping point with poverty, and especially childhood poverty, that we have with greenhouse gas emissions and catastrophic climate change. We either act now or no action delayed or deferred will ultimately matter. It seems to me it's that urgent.

[dajoki]

53. I also believe...

it is that urgent, and had some hope when we elected Obama and overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress. I think this is our last best chance, but I lost faith when I saw what happened in the lead up to the stimulus. Are the Dems that afraid of the Repubs?

[JeffR]

55. They are, I think, yes.

Why they are I'm not sure.

I have a lot more faith in Obama than I do in the Democratic Congress, but I'm taking a wait and see attitude. He had a promising page on change.gov about addressing poverty, though it was far from visionary and far short of what I believe needs to be done.

[dajoki]

58. Once Obama gets...

his bearings I think he will realize that bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship is just plain wrong. He will see that he must use his bully pulpit to go directly to the American people and not allow the Republicans to control the debate. When and if this happens we may get some good things accomplished.

[JeffR]

63. There's cause for optimism that it will work that way.

The stimulus skirmishing can't have failed to impact on his thinking.

Optimism, though, still feels dangerous, somehow.

[Gregorian]

57. Let's turn this country around. I want to be a shining example for planet earth.

Profit is fine, but at the top of the list should be caring for each other.

We've been turned into a country that is fishing human beings. The so-called drug war. The way we just let people fall between the cracks. And then the industries that profit off of the failure of those who do fall through the cracks.

[Seldona]

59. K&R

Those statistics are amazing, and scary.

[dajoki]

61. The State of Poverty

http://www.povertylaw.org/

Number of children: 12.9 million
...four times the number of all the children in Illinois

Number of seniors 65 and over: 3.6 million
...the same as the entire population of Oklahoma

Number of women: 14.6 million
...the entire population of Wisconsin, Indiana, and Iowa combined

Number reporting a disability: 8.0 million
...a population larger than the State of Massachusetts

Number of homeless: 3.5 million
...twice the population of Nebraska

[JeffR]

68. The Shriver Center is a great resource. Thanks for posting this.

Though their 12.9 million number is low. The Children's Defense Fund now puts the number at 13.3 million. Who says GW Bush & friends didn't accomplish anything?

[dajoki]

77. It may be time...

for them to update their website, the same numbers have been there for a while now.

[ColbertWatcher]

73. 23.2% of the children in Texas are in poverty! That's disgraceful.

America can't afford any more "compassionate conservatism."

[Two Americas]

76. dramatically understated

I think the poverty rate is dramatically understated, as is the unemployment rate, by manipulation of the numbers. This influences our view of poverty and weakens the public demand and political will to improve conditions.

There could well be 20% unemployment. 50% of the people in the country may well be on the edge and living in some degree of impoverishment, with another 20% not far from that and at great risk and living with terrible anxiety.

Artificially suppressing public awareness of poverty causes people to think they are doing better than they are, and so to be ill prepared for emergencies, as well as leading them to see poor people as being only the most desperately poor, and so not a group of people they can relate to, though they may have a great deal of sympathy. We need to see that we are all becoming poorer, we are all at risk, and that we are vastly closer to the most desperately and obviously poor than we are to the few who are comfortable and secure and living anything that could even remotely be called a "middle class" life.

We should avoid feeling sorry for "them" - and thinking in terms of sympathy and charity - and be outraged and motivated for all of us, starting with those who are suffering the most. But we are them, and they are us. The "helping" dynamic positions the "helper" in the supposed superior position, as the one who is not at risk. Thing "fight" not "help." We are all in this together, and we are all in great danger. For the few reading this who are fairly secure and well off - God bless you and thank you for your interest. But please do not try to impose your view, from your good fortune, on the rest of us and tell us that we are "making too big a deal out of this" or that "anyone could get out of poverty were they only (motivated, mentally healthy, making the "right choices" etc.)"

From the The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) -

Considerable research has been conducted on better methods to measure income poverty, but to date, the political will necessary to implement change has been lacking. In the early 1990s, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to investigate alternative measures.

If the NAS recommendations were adopted, many more people would be considered officially poor. But even these recommendations underestimate the cost of family expenses and thus produce poverty thresholds well below what it takes to make ends meet, for example, increasing the poverty level for a family of four by only about $3,000 annually.

How much does it really take to make ends meet?

Given that the federal poverty level grossly understates how much it takes to support a family, researchers have developed budgets that realistically quantify basic living costs in specific localities. 4 Building on earlier efforts, NCCP has developed Basic Needs Budgets for 70 localities across 13 states. 5

Across the country, families on average need an income of about twice the official poverty level, or roughly $40,000 for a family of four, to meet basic needs. In a high-cost city like New York, the figure is over $50,000, whereas in rural areas, the figure is in the low $30,000s.

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_707.html

It takes twice income as much income to actually be out of poverty than the government guidelines suggest. I think this will resonate with many people, who think on the one hand that they are quite a bit above the poverty threshold, yet are very insecure and struggling. This causes a lot of confusion.

From povertyusa.org -

Budgeting for Poverty

Right now in America, nearly thirty-seven million Americans are living below the poverty line.

That’s one in eight of us - barely hanging on.

What is the poverty line?

According to the federal government, a family of four earning less than $20,614… is living in poverty.

But how far does $20,614 go in America today?

How do you budget?

What do you leave out?

You make the hard choices.

Housing? In America, a family of four earning less than $20,614 a year will spend on average $5,756 annually for the most basic of shelter.

$20,614
-$5,756
$14,858

Utilities? To keep a family of four warm and secure, the average expense for utilities and public services runs $2,656 a year.

$14,858
-$2,656
$12,202

Transportation? A family at the poverty line will spend $5,330 a year to own and maintain a used car and fill it with the gas and oil needed to go to work, to day care, to the store.

$12,202
-$5,330
$6,872

Food? Even with public assistance such as food stamps families making less than $20,614 will spend $4,064 a year for food at home and away.

$6,872
-$4,064
$2,808

Health Care? Even if an employer contributes part of the costs of health insurance a family of four at the poverty line would still pay on average $2,329 a year for health and medical expenses. The cost of not having health insurance, however could be devastating.

$2,808
-$2329
$479

Child Care? Even with child care subsidies, low income families with two small children will spend on average $2,600 a year on child care.

$479
-$2600
-$2121

So now you’re $2121 over budget…

And you still don’t have everything you need.

What will you have to let go?

Toiletries, School Supplies, Shoes, Clothes, Holiday Gifts, Education, Life Insurance, Furnishings, Recreation, Cleaning Supplies, Entertainment, Birthday Gifts?

When you’re living in poverty… trying to hang on these are the decisions you have to struggle with every day.

Source of Statistics:
Housing, utilities, transportation, food, health care: Consumer Expenditures Survey, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, February 2007
Child care: Expenditures on Children by Families, United States Department of Agriculture,
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, April 2007
Poverty threshold: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the
United States: 2006

Be careful about thinking in terms of "helping the poor" as though they were a separate species, or pets, or a permanent underclass. Think in terms of fighting for your life, and on behalf of all of us, starting with those who are most affected by this ongoing destruction of the American people, and who are suffering the most.

[JeffR]

79. Your final words are terribly important.

With the caveat that a "permanent underclass" is precisely what the right has been working to construct for decades now. And in that, if nothing else, they've had a huge measure of success.

But you're exactly right. The only goal has to be social justice. Charity is a ludicrous framework for thinking about these things. A local food bank director some years ago was asked about measuring the success of the effort, and replied something like, "We'll know we've succeeded when there's no need for us to exist."

The poor need justice, not spare change. Children most of all.

[smokey nj]

93. "The poor need justice, not spare change."

Well put, JeffR.

[maryf]

112. My bad

I realized in reading my caveat post that I might have implied children not be advocated first; they must be as they can't for themselves more than any other group, too late to edit there, thanks again for this important post.

[maryf]

96. One point, maybe two ;) just nit picking, but every nit costs...

the housing cost, less than 500 a month that you use to calculate, is not to be found in many of the urban areas of this country, for many it would be impossible to find housing for less than 600 raising the discrepancy of money to over 4,000 beyond the poverty level...of course with section 8 that amount could change, but as there are 3 applicants for every 2 units, folks again are forced to consider higher rents...

[Two Americas]

116. indeed

I was hoping that people would look at those figures I quoted and understand that we are still underestimating the problem.

[maryf]

152. I knew that

and you were clear, I was nit picking (sorry!!), I had no clue how much we were underestimating the problem for the urban folks...

[dajoki]

105. Measuring Poverty in the United States

Measuring Poverty in the United States
Authors: Nancy K. Cauthen and Sarah Fass
Publication Date: June 2008
http://nccp.org/publications/pub_825.html

This fact sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty, why the current measure is inadequate, and what alternative ways exist to measure economic hardship.

How does the U.S. measure poverty?

Figure 1: Federal poverty guidelines, 2008
The U.S. government measures poverty by a narrow income standard that does not include other aspects of economic status, such as material hardship (for example, living in substandard housing) or debt, nor does it consider financial assets (including savings or property). The official poverty measure is a specific dollar amount that varies by family size but is the same across the continental U.S. According to the guidelines, the poverty level in 2008 is $21,200 a year for a family of four and $17,600 for a family of three (see table). 1 The poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for public programs. A similar but more complex measure is used for calculating poverty rates.

The current poverty measure was established in the 1960s and is now widely acknowledged to be flawed. 2 It was based on research indicating that families spent about one-third of their incomes on food – the official poverty level was set by multiplying food costs by three. Since then, the figures have been updated annually for inflation but have otherwise remained unchanged.

Why is the current poverty measure inadequate?
The current poverty measure is flawed in two ways.

The current poverty level – that is, the specific dollar amount – is based on outdated assumptions about family expenditures.
Food now comprises only one-seventh of an average family’s expenses, while the costs of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have grown disproportionately. Thus, the poverty level does not reflect the true cost of supporting a family. In addition, the current poverty measure is a national standard that does not adjust for the substantial variation in the cost of living from state to state and between urban and rural areas.

More accurate estimates of typical family expenses, and adjustments for local costs, would produce substantially higher dollar amounts.

The method used to determine whether a family is poor does not accurately count family resources.
When determining if a family is poor, income sources counted include earnings, interest, dividends, Social Security, and cash assistance. But income is counted before subtracting payroll, income, and other taxes, overstating income for some families. On the other hand, the federal Earned Income Tax Credit isn’t counted either, underestimating income for other families. Also, in-kind government benefits that assist low-income families – food stamps, Medicaid, and housing and child care assistance – are not taken into account. This means that official poverty statistics cannot be used to analyze the effectiveness of these programs.

Are there alternative ways to measure poverty?
Considerable research has been conducted on better methods to measure income poverty, but to date, the political will necessary to implement change has been lacking. In the early 1990s, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to investigate alternative measures. The NAS panel of experts issued a report in 1995 that recommended revising the poverty level and the method of determining which families are poor. 3 The panel’s recommendations included the following:

Create new poverty thresholds that more accurately reflect the cost of food, clothing, and shelter.
Adjust thresholds by region to account for variation in the cost of living.
When counting families’ resources to determine whether they fall below the poverty line:
use families’ post-tax income;
include earned income tax credits and the value of near-cash benefits (such as food stamps and housing assistance); and
subtract the cost of work-related expenses (such as child care and transportation) and medical care.
If the NAS recommendations were adopted, millions more people would be considered officially poor. But even these recommendations underestimate the cost of family expenses and thus produce poverty thresholds well below what it takes to make ends meet, for example, increasing the poverty level for a family of four by only about $3,000 annually. 4

How much does it really take to make ends meet?

Figure 2: Basic needs budgets for a family of four, in selected urban, suburban, and rural localities*

Given that the federal poverty level grossly understates how much it takes to support a family, researchers have developed budgets that realistically quantify basic living costs in specific localities. 5 Building on earlier efforts, NCCP has developed Basic Needs Budgets that include only the most basic daily living expenses and are based on modest assumptions about costs. For example, the budgets in the table below assume that family members have employer-sponsored health coverage, even though the majority of low-wage workers do not have employer coverage. 6 NCCP’s Basic Needs Budgets do not include money to purchase life or disability insurance or to create a rainy-day fund that would help a family withstand a job loss or other financial crisis. Nor do they allow for investments in a family’s future financial success, such as savings to buy a home or for a child’s education. In short, these budgets indicate what it takes for a family to cover their most basic living expenses – enough to get by but not enough to get ahead.

Across the country, families typically need an income of at least twice the official poverty level ($42,400 for a family of four) to meet basic needs. In high-cost cities such as New York, it may take an income of over three times the poverty level to make ends meet, whereas in some rural areas, the figure may be under double the poverty level.

In short, even if the official poverty measure is revised along the lines suggested by the NAS, it would remain a measure of deprivation and severe hardship. In contrast, Basic Needs Budgets provide a way to think about what families need to maintain a minimally decent standard of living.

Endnotes
1. The federal poverty guidelines are used for administrative purposes, such as determining financial eligibility for benefit programs. For statistical purposes, researchers use a different – but quite similar – version of the federal poverty measure, the federal poverty thresholds, issued by the U.S. Census Bureau. Both the guidelines and the thresholds are commonly referred to as the federal poverty level (FPL).

2. Cauthen, Nancy K. 2007. Testimony on Measuring Poverty in America. Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means. Aug. 1, 2007.

3. Betson, David M.; Citro, Constance F.; Michael, Robert T. 2000. Recent Developments for Poverty Measurement in U.S. Official Statistics. Journal of Official Statistics 16(2): 87-111.

4. Bernstein, Jared. 2007. More Poverty than Meets the Eye (Economic Snapshots, April 11, 2007). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Accessed April 23, 2007.

5. These efforts include Self-Sufficiency Standards developed by Diana Pearce for Wider Opportunities for Women and the Economic Policy Institute’s Basic Family Budgets.

6. Only 59 percent of all workers have access to employer-sponsored health coverage; the proportion is much lower among low-wage workers. Krugman, Paul. 2007. The Conscience of a Liberal. New York, NY: W.W. Norton& Co.

[maryf]

111. Thanks Dajoki, with Two Americas you show a pretty bleak picture

of what poverty is in reality vs. what the gov't shows it to be, thanks to you both...

[southerncrone]

114. I was able to rise out of childhood poverty because of Democratic policies & caring neighbors

& family members.

A high school friend's family basically adopted me part-time for vacations & weekend sleepovers, and grand parents & an aunt & uncle helped my mom by taking care of me after school. Mom worked women's jobs that, of course, didn't pay enough to barely survive.

I was forced into poverty by divorce. Not unlike many of these children today. Others are there because their mothers never married the father, making it easier for him to "escape" his responsibility.

I was fortunate to go to a good public school & did well. I was taught a strong work ethic and followed it. I worked 3 part-time jobs while going to college, but was also fortunate enough to qualify for Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG) that the Democrats had established. Without those grants, I would never have made it.

Kids today have more scholarships available, but these often have very narrow restrictions on qualification, or there are no qualifications & the kids who have the powerful parents are often awarded them like trophies (even if they don't need them).

The government educational "help" of today lies in LOANS, because the Repukes need to continue to make a buck off the backs of the poor. They see it as their divine right.

The fact that kids are graduating or leaving college with tens & hundreds of thousands of $'s in debt is like an anchor that they cannot shed for decades when trying to pay these loans back. This is the new way to keep 'em down.......saddle 'em with strangling debt.

This is "Conservative Compassion" in action. A feigning of concern while making a buck off of the less fortunate.
:puke:

[EFerrari]

78. Kick

[JeffR]

80. Kick

and to all a good night.

[Two Americas]

81. kick

Kick for the morning crowd.

[saltpoint]

82. It is despairing to think that while the well-off are being challenged on

bonus pay the people represented in the statistics in the OP struggle for the basics.

Bonus pay indeed.

"Hurray, hurray -- here's a several-million-dollar bonus check for you to keep perpetuating economic injustice!"

When I see a post of this caliber I am brought into closer contact with the idea that as a society we have to prioritize far better than we usually do, beginning at the top tier. I'll contact the governors to add one voice.

[dajoki]

108. Among other things...

You may want to inform them of this study, and ask them where their state ranks.

http://www.rwjf.org/vulnerablepopulations/product.jsp?id=35208
New State-by-State Report Finds Shortfalls in Children's Health Tied to Parents' Income and Education
States ranked by size of gaps in key child health measures; children in less-advantaged families fare worse than children in families with higher incomes, more education.
October 08, 2008Washington, D.C.

Across the country and within every state, there are substantial shortfalls in the health of children based on their family's income and education, says a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. The report is the first to rank states on infant mortality and children's health status based on key social factors, and it shows that as parent's income and levels of education rise, children's health improves.

The report, America's Health Starts With Healthy Children: How Do States Compare?, highlights the important role that income and education play in the health of America's children. It shows the unrealized health potential possible if all children had the same opportunities for health as those in the most well-off families. In almost every state and the District of Columbia, children in the poorest and least educated households suffer the worst health outcomes. But even middle-class children and children in well-off families are not as healthy as they could be.

"All parents want their children to grow up to lead long, healthy lives, but sadly, not all of our children have the same opportunities to reach those goals," says Commission Co-chair Alice M. Rivlin. "This report shows us just how much a child's health is shaped by the environment in which he or she lives. We seek to identify ways to narrow these gaps so our nation can put all children on an even path to good health."

Family Income and Children's Health

In the United States, 16 percent of children ages 17 and younger are in less than optimal health based on their parents' reports—a rate that varies widely across states from a high of 22.8 percent in Texas to a low of 6.9 percent in Vermont. But these rates also vary dramatically by income, both nationally and within states.

<<snip>>

Children's Health and Income

--Four of every 10 children in the United States live in poor or near-poor households, and three in 10 live in middle-income households.

--Nationally and in nearly every state, children in poor families are more likely—more than six times as likely, in some states—to be in less than optimal health than children in higher-income families.

--With few exceptions, children in middle-income families also appear to be more likely—twice as likely, in some states—than wealthier children to be in less than optimal health....MORE

[WVRICK13]

83. I See This Every Day

in serving the poor and the numbers are increasing. What I now see are clients who were relatively stable with jobs and homes who were able to provide food for their families now standing in line for the food pantry. A lot of these people are still working but they got so far behind due to the huge rise in gas and heating fuel prices they can't seem to recover. Even though the price has declined a bit they are still fighting a losing battle to catch up. They did nothing wrong, they worked, had the number of children they could afford to feed and they are still starving. The entire collapse was promulgated by the raping of the economy by big oil and big oil is still raping us. Crude prices are down and gas keeps raising in price. Until these bastards are taken to task and forced to play for the team the country cannot recover.

On the other side of the coin I see clients who have never been able to feed themselves and have never worked, choosing instead to live from handout to handout. These are the people who have three, four or five children. Why in the world do these people produce children in abundance? Seriously, if you can't afford to feed em don't breed em. I believe if you knowingly produce more children than you can afford you are guilty of neglect at the very least and possibly abuse. What do they think will happen when they have the child, food will fall from heaven. Some states have laws that protect animals from owners who have more pets than they can care for yet we ignore the plight of innocent children who should have never been conceived. I know all of the arguments about reproductive rights but those rights do not supersede the rights of a child not to be hungry and cold.

[bobbolink]

164. How comforting it is to know that someone who "serves the poor" is able to

be so judgmental.

:eyes:

Thank you..you've well illustrated a point I've been working to make.

[WVRICK13]

179. Not Judgmental

Just being factual. I do not blame the clients but rather I blame our system of welfare in this country. There was a time when people receiving public assistance went to work in order to get their checks in a public works system. Somewhere around the time of LBJ it was decided you cannot provide jobs or make someone work. This took away the pride and work ethic of the less fortunate. It also took away the role model of a parent working to bring home a check. After all of these generations we have families who have been receiving checks for so long and not working that they think you get money for nothing. They have lost sight of how much better their lives could be if they did not settle for a check and started demanding more from society and themselves. I actually had a client tell me she had a job, "I go to the mail box and get my check that is my job." That is some statement. The question is how do we restore their drive and desire to have more in life and the willingness to work toward that goal? How do we make these victims feel a sense of self worth? It certainly isn't by giving them a substandard allowance once a month. We have created our own problems and ingrained them into entire sectors of our population.

My agency has a very short and simple Mission Statement. We operate and advocate programs that remove people from the cause of poverty. That is a great goal and one I never forget when I try to assist a client. I don't want to pay their bills I want to make it so they can pay their own bills.

[bobbolink]

185. A very well-stated RW talking point.

You have it down pat.

[WVRICK13]

189. Somehow I Fail To Understand

how making society provide opportunities for success and growth is Right Wing. If anything I am so left wing I am off the scale. I want the people society has kicked to have a voice to stand up proud and demand their rightful opportunities. Society created the problems not the poor. Notice I called my clients victims. I only wish we could sit down and talk face to face since blogging only gives a snippet without the chance to question each other in a real life way. I think we are more alike than different but this medium is hard to communicate through. I wish you the best my friend.

[bobbolink]

192. I stand up and demand my "rightful opportunities"--which amounts to housing now,

but I get the very same criticism and derogatory comments that you voiced against those you "serve"

It hurts, it weakens me, and I no longer take it.

To me, that's "standing up proud".

[WVRICK13]

181. Oops, Got SideTracked

There is not one day that I don't act as an advocate for the poor. I advocate for better job chances, workforce training, livable wages with insurance, a warm home, food on the table. I support food banks, workforce development efforts, nutrition training, provide free condoms and the list goes on. What I have not figured out how to do is help the clients overcome the apathy our system has forced on them. I have days I go home and feel so guilty for having had a better life than those I serve that I take time to sit and cry. My sadness makes me advocate even more for programs to solve the problem and stop with the damned band aids. As we all know, serving the poor is not a high paying job, yet there are times when our system does not have an answer to a particular plight and I pull out my check book and give to clients even if it means I will be late on bills.

I reread my first post and it did sound judgmental, my apologies. I am a Democrat because there is not a viable Socialist party. I would gladly pay more in taxes if every citizen could have health care, better education, job opportunities and a safety net, but I will never support a system that rapes people of their pride and ambition. Some days I feel that is part of the plan, to give society somebody to kick. What can we do to make people feel strong enough to demand their rights? How can we make everyone understand the concept of "Casual Cruelty." We are casually cruel when we shop at Walmart, McDonald's or any place that has a system to underpay the rank and file, set hours just low enough to deny them benefits and otherwise abuse those too weak to protest. It is their labor and abuse that allows the rest of us to have cheaper goods and fast food. In essence, these abused workers subsidize the lives of those of us who are in a relatively better position.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. Two faith based administrations now

And still faith seems to be all about discriminating against gay people and holding public events where others can see you act all holy. Less prayer breakfasts and more free school breakfasts might be a step.
I can not write about this and not get tombstoned.

[bobbolink]

175. that's a stereotype, and needs to be EXAMINED more closely.

I'll tell you this from my own experience..... the "liberals" and "progressives" around me have NO TIME for me.... they can't be bothered to befriend or help those of us who are hurting.

It's the Evangelicals who are picking up the "cause" and getting involved.

So, go ahead and dis them.... and watch poor folk more and more follow those who are TAKING ACTION!

Yes, this is happening, and it will involve larger and larger numbers of people.

You have two choices with this... you can blame poor people for "not following their own economic best interest (which is what they ARE actually doing!), or you can work to change this damned party and get poverty ACTION NOW!

[ThomWV]

85. Mississippi 30%, Louisiana 28%, New Mexico 26%, West Virginia 25%

2007 data.

http://www.aecf.org/Newsroom/~/media/PDFFiles/kc_census_poverty_august29%20pdf.ashx

[Two Americas]

139. important implication there

Those in the worst poverty are the most skeptical that the Democrats and liberals are really on their side. Why is that? Read DU. Democrats and liberals today are for the most part not on the side of poor people, of the everyday people. Those of us speaking about this are an embattled and dismissed minority here.

[varelse]

86. it's time to put poor children at the top of the priority list

Agreed. It'd be nice to see them make the list AT ALL.

Statement from Sheila Crowley, President, National Low Income Housing Coalition, on Senate passage of $15,000 homebuyer tax credit

...the U.S. Senate adopted an amendment to the pending American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that will give every homebuyer this year, no matter his or her income, a $15,000 tax credit. The cost is $18.50 billion. The amendment did not include an offset, so the cost is added to the total cost of the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote without a single Senator raising an objection.

Yet, the same Senate has not included any funding in the bill that will produce a single new unit of housing that is affordable to the poorest families in the country. The Senate bill does not capitalize the National Housing Trust Fund to build and rehabilitate rental homes that are affordable to low wage workers, the unemployed, the disabled, and the elderly. Nor does the Senate bill provide funding for housing vouchers that would help low income families afford to rent existing housing in the market.

Both items have been sought by advocates for low income people to prevent a surge in homelessness due to the foreclosure crisis and the recession. The two items together would cost $13.60 billion, and provide 400,000-500,000 poor families with decent homes they could afford. Any increase in unemployment causes the poverty level to rise. One in ten people who are poor will lose their homes unless steps are taken to prevent them from becoming homeless. An unemployment rate of 9% is predicted to result in at least new 800,000 people, including children and seniors, becoming homeless adding the existing homeless population.

The bill does include $1.5 billion for emergency housing assistance for people facing homelessness, an important element to a homelessness prevention strategy. But permanent affordable homes are required to assure housing stability for the lowest income households.

The Federal Government's focus still seems to be on serving the (admittedly shrinking) "middle" class, rather than on social services and a safety net for all.

[maryf]

94. Thanks Varelse!

This information is so important it needs to be its own OP...Actions to be taken?

[bobbolink]

163. And what, then, do people like me do??? We're on NO list, let alone the "top".

Seriously, I want to know... what do you want people like me to do?

Quietly die, so that none of you will have to face the fact that we CAN'T SURVIVE????

I Have tried and tried and tried to get ALL of you to understand that dividing us this way, and assigning priorities will only PERPETUATE POVERTY!!!

Surely you can understand why some of us get the message that we are worthless and should just kill ourselves!!

Then, of course, we're locked up, and THOUSANDS spent on keeping us from doing just that.

How's THAT for crazy?????

If this is what you seriously believe, then you also need to campaign for the rest of us to get "exit pills" so we can get out of your field of vision. What we're put into is IMPOSSIBLE.

[Two Americas]

172. important point

This needs much more discussion. Cat is on the right track above. Not sure how to break out of this this stubborn insistence people have on dividing people into discrete and isolated groups. How do we start thinking in terms of common humanity, rather then this or that group or cause? The foundation of people's thinking is that there is this group - as though it were a separate species - called "children in poverty" and ain't it awful and aren't we all compassionate about that and let's do something, and we will get to those other groups later blah blah. How do we get people to see them as us? We are the group. We are us. They are us. We are them. That seems so self-evident that it is difficult to explain. "There is the sky" - how do you "sell" people on that idea? "Look up!" - what else can you say? What people are saying in effect is "over there are those poor people, whom I care about so much, and they are drowning. What can we do to help them?" No. Look up. Look up. There is a storm coming and we are all going to drown. We must see the bigger picture, see how things are related, and how we are all in the same boat. We start with those who are most in need, not in lieu if other things we are doing, but as part of the entire program.

Modern liberalism is all screwed up on this. Everything is divided into discrete and isolated "causes" that people then choose from. "Healthy food is my cause" or "animal welfare is the cause that I really care about." The problem is that the objects of our causes, the victims of our compassion, are seen as different than us, and as isolated and separate and different. The fight for humanity is not a fucking hobby. Human beings are not objects, are not lab rats, are not put here for our amusement as do-gooder activists.

How do we break out of this tendency in liberalism to separate everything into discrete, isolated and unrelated causes, so that we then pick and choose "priorities" and never have enough time or energy or resources, and are always taking two steps forward and three back, and then leave so many people behind?

[bobbolink]

174. "we will get to those other groups later" We've done this for 40 years now! See how effective

it's been???

When does "later" come?

Is it "later" yet??

"are not put here for our amusement "

So many of us feel exactly that way!!

YET.. even though I typed this, and put thought into it, and not a little bit of risk and pain, I'm willing to bet that there will be no other replies.

NOBODY WANTS TO LOOK AT THIS!

"We're PROGRESSIVES... we're the Good Guys.... we do it RIGHT!"

And here are people completely forgotten and ignored, and suffering and dying as a result.

BUT DON'T LOOK AT THAT!!!

NO!! NO!! TURN AWAY!

I ask again... WHAT ARE THOSE OF US WHO DON'T FIT IN YOUR NEAT LITTLE CATEGORIES SUPPOSED TO DO????


..

(*Your* is PLURAL: what the Southerners would call "y'all"... or "all y'all"--- not one person in particular.)

[maryf]

88. Thank you for posting this Jeff...a caveat...

The children are our future, and unable to fend for themselves, thus we must all be their advocates, and fight for them eternally. Lest we forget, however, many indigent adults have lost their children due to their inability to care for them, to provide them housing, food, etc., not due to any fault of their own; by helping the adult parents of these children we help all children. Also many adults are homeless and poor who don't have children, again through no fault of their own. We have to fight for all poor, and watch out for the insidious "divide and conquer" that might come if we only focus on one group. Just a caveat for all here...K and R! of course! and thanks for the next Poverty in America essay!!!

[olegramps]

89. There are simple solutions.

Raise the income tax level on the wealthy to 90% or more and increase the inheritance tax to seize the billions that the Republicans have stolen from the working class. Put surtaxes on their outlandish homes and energy use. Slash the military industrial budget that is nothing more than a rip off to profit the few. Our military budget equals the total that is spent by all the other nations combined. Republicans talk about wealth redistribution. The greatest wealth redistribution has taken place under the Republicans in which the wealth has been concentrated in the top 1% of the citizens. It is far passed the time when the working class should revolt and confiscate what the robber barons have stolen.

[maryf]

95. Yes, tax the rich!

Even a 50% tax on the wealthiest without write offs would be huge and enough to do it, though I like the 90% :) With you on everything else too!

[knitter4democracy]

90. I would bet that Michigan's numbers are higher than that.

My kids go to one of the "good" elementaries in the area. Everyone always says that it's the one with more upper-middle class families, and yet, in volunteering there every week, I'm seeing more and more kids and families struggling. Families are moving out in droves, leaving Michigan in hopes of finding something, anything, better than here, but there are a lot who just plain can't afford to move. Kids without good coats or hats and mittens or snowpants, this during a really cold winter. Kids who have the same outfit on every week when I'm there and look exhausted. Kids who get their pictures taken but can't afford the packages or who didn't have the money for Santa's Secret Shop this year at all and were told that Mommy and Daddy don't need any presents this year.

It just breaks my heart. Kids are hurting, and we need to do more about it.

[Deb]

91. Thanks for posting this

I had never worked with cold children until this winter, cold and hungry... a lesson that no 4 year old should have to learn.

It is a struggle to keep from hating half of the Hill.

[Kajsa]

97. " we are the richest nation in the world"

-not when we have these statistics!

And more people are joining the ranks
of the homeless every day.

Thanks so much Jeff for posting this.

:kick: and R.

[Odin2005]

100. This stuff breaks my heart.

20 years before I was born we had a president that was determined to end poverty in America. It's still here, I grew up among it. That it still exists is nothing short of criminal.

[GrannyK]

101. K & R

[jmg257]

103. Why? Why are so many born into poverty? What compels people to have these kids? nt

" every 33 seconds, a newborn American takes his or her first breath in poverty."

[Odin2005]

104. My guesses: inabillity to find birth control. inabillity to get an abortion,...

...teens and adults ignorant about birth control, religious beliefs in favor of large families and against birth control, etc.

[Two Americas]

128. a few more relevant points

When wealth is more fairly shared, when living conditions improve, birth rates go down. The supposed danger of population growth, with the associated anti-humanist ideas that lead people to call human beings a "cancer" or a "plague" or a "virus" on the planet - is a symptom, not a cause of deprivation, and that comes from economic injustice. Notice that those calling for population reduction never volunteer themselves or their own clan for reduction. The population reduction arguments are inherently and blatantly upper class and racist and bigoted arguments.

As the place guard for the ruling class, we intellectuals are required to make up and promote these absurdly illogical and anti-humanist arguments to defend privilege and power, and the population reduction arguments are a prime example of this. We are clever enough, and verbal enough, to create these convoluted arguments but not smart or wise enough - or courageous enough - to see through them. In this way, smart people are made stupid. If they are made stupid, they are no longer a threat to the ruling class. By teaching people to sound smart while being stupid, the illusion can be maintained. Modern higher education teaches people how to sound smart, while not doing any real thinking.

Economic justice is the cure for the supposed problem of over population. But since as the palace guard, we are forbidden to talk about economic justice lest we be severely punished and cast out, we grasp at the population reduction arguments and try to make them sound logical and reasonable. Poor people and uneducated people are not so stupid as we are, and they reject those arguments and that cruel and ignorant thinking.

There is more than enough to go around. It serves the ruling class to have all think in terms of scarcity and shortages. The creation of artificial scarcity and shortages is what drives capitalism. I hoard and control what you need, and so make a profit and become "successful."

It is the left wing people and the intellectuals who are told to not have children - to "save the planet" or for whatever nonsensical reason. Why is that? The ruling class does not want people who are opposed to their tyranny to be raising children. That is a threat to their power.

[Odin2005]

145. Excellent post, 2A!

[Solly Mack]

197. Yep

[dajoki]

107. You're not suggesting...

that the government mandate who could have children and who can't, are you?

[destinationunknown]

109. How about a personal mandate? I mean, until one can go to college, find a career and become stable?

We have free public education in this country. No, in some places, it is far from ideal. But many times, pregancy causes teens to drop out, which puts their lives on hold. I would love education at this level to impress upon young people that sexual intercourse is not necessary. Not for religious reasons, but for the complications to a young, low-income person. A wealthier teen has the means to "take care of it," whatever that means.

[jmg257]

110. NO. Partly I am wondering why people choose to have kids that they know the can't afford.

Who does it help?


I am concerned that if so many knowingly rely on govt funding, that they would also be more subject to govt control. NOT "SHOULD BE"..."could be". Scary.

[Two Americas]

118. choosing and affording

These notions of "choosing" and "affording" are an illusion. So is the notion that some are, and some are not, relying on government funding.

[jmg257]

119. "choosing" and "affording" are an illusion" Why?

I realize things can happen to anyone - not questioning that.

I would think most people would know whether or not they had a good shot at being able to afford the kid(s) they choose to have. What am I missing?

[Two Americas]

123. not an argument

I hope you understand that I am not looking for an argument here, nor to smack you down or anything.

The system requires a "place guard," a group of people that Malcolm called "house Negroes." These people are given a certain amount of status, perks and trinkets in exchange for promoting and defending certain illusions about the system. Almost everyone, especially if they are white males, who show any aptitude at verbal skills, are rigorously trained to be house Negroes - called "being responsible" or "being successful" or "being smart and successful" - and must defend and promote the system of privilege and inequality, lest they be seen as "radicals" or "misfits" or otherwise troublesome and to be shunned, marginalized and cast out of their social circle. You can be literally tossed out of your school, job or home if you are too outspoken or politically active.

This serves the needs of the wealthy and powerful view, because it silences and decapitates the working class. As soon as a person "improves" themselves and climbs out of poverty, they are recruited for the palace guards - they must become palace guards, because that is what "success" means in this country, that is what people are being paid to do - or rather, paid not to do. You are paid to not tell the truth - and paid even more of you will lie - paid to not find common cause with other working people - and paid even more of you find ways to persecute people - paid to not think of anything but yourself and not do anything but promote yourself and look after yourself and not others, paid to not talk about the working class in a certain way, paid to not challenge the Horatio Alger bootstraps vision of individualism, paid to not get "too radical" or politically active.

Within the privileged circle of the "winners" life is seen as a matter of "choices" where we make decisions about "what we can afford" and then wonder why those outside of the circle do not simply solve their own problems by making the "right choices" according to "what they can afford."

But you cannot afford anything and you have no choices. You are given so-called choices as defined by others, and permitted to afford things, merely crumbs thrown from the table of the wealthy and powerful few and subject to their whims - in other words you do not control either of those - if and only if you first surrender your autonomy, first agree to defend and promote injustice, first agree to abandon any commitment to the truth, first deny your humanity. The you will have choices and be able to afford things. If you are a white male, and are born into relative privilege, this will be much easier and even seem "natural."

In that context children - human beings - can be seen as merely an extension of our own egos, as merely self-centered choices that we can afford or we cannot afford, as though they were fashion accessories that some people do not deserve to have. Now those in poverty can be blamed for their own misery, can be seen as morally deficient, as having made the "wrong choices" and been "irresponsible" - just a new modern word for the concept of "sinful" - and so de-humanized. we can then turn our back on "their" children and congratulate ourselves on how righteous and clever and superior we are. In that way, the most hideously immoral thinking and acting can be recast as morally righteous.

But that privilege, that luxury, of being able to see ourselves as righteous and clever and superior is not something we have earned. It is something that was given to us and is under the control of others, and for which we traded away our humanity and the truth.

Why should poor people NOT have children, given the way you are looking at children? It is a self-defeating argument. If children are merely an expense, then all human beings become expendable. If children are something we buy - and what else could it be of we are going to talk about being able to "afford" them - then human beings are a commodity. If human beings are merely a commodity, then obviously we must look a little more deeply at the problem then seeing it as "choices" that people can "afford."

But we will not look more deeply at it, because we are trained to be palace guards, and our well being depends upon that, and our sense of entitlement and superiority and unexamined privilege - from which all of the "why don't they just..." arguments spring - depends upon that.

[jmg257]

125. Hmm..interesting. Thanks! I will have to read up on this idea some more! nt

[varelse]

144. Thank you for this

Why should poor people NOT have children, given the way you are looking at children? It is a self-defeating argument. If children are merely an expense, then all human beings become expendable. If children are something we buy - and what else could it be of we are going to talk about being able to "afford" them - then human beings are a commodity. If human beings are merely a commodity, then obviously we must look a little more deeply at the problem then seeing it as "choices" that people can "afford."

Just... thank you :)

[Tindalos]

148. Excellent post, Two Americas

"Why should poor people NOT have children" is exactly right. Instead if asking why people have children they can't afford, we should be asking why they can't afford to raise their children. The problem is access to adequate jobs, affordable housing, education, etc, all the things that many take for granted. These necessities are considered trivial to the rich, who can't even imagine going without them. However, going without is the norm for many families.

[treestar]

122. People don't have kids on that basis

Why does the third world have a high birth rate then?

It's an instinct, and has been for millions of years.

[jmg257]

126. A bit simple, but OK. "Simple" meaning obviously that many do not allow instinct to over-rule

common sense.

Interesting though - hadn't thought of it!

[varelse]

115. The poor are no less human than anyone else

please, try to remember that they want the same future the rest of us have. For many, that includes having a family. Blaming the victim will NOT make the problem go away. Poverty is a result of long-held beliefs and values reflected in inadequate or even outright cruel social policies which perpetuate inequality.

Please don't add to it.

Thank you.

[jmg257]

117. Not looking to place blame. Wondering about the choices people make, and

how/why the choices they make cause them to be victims, and why they would make such choices.

[Two Americas]

131. a strong recommendation

Dump the whole idea of "choices." It is libertarian Reagan bootstrap individualism with an "organic" or "green" or "progressive" label slapped in it. It corrupts all of our thinking.

We are not consuming units making selections, we are human beings. We are not lab rats. We are not commodities.

People do not "choose" to be victims, as a general rule, and even in the rare cases that they do that is an effect not a cause.

I am talking politics here, not religion ("spirituality" in the modern parlance) or psychology. Nothing wrong with religion or psychology, but they make a poor substitute for politics. It is important to use the right tool for the task at hand.

[varelse]

143. Most of the world's population is poor, but that does not make them less entitled

to live as human beings, up to and including the right to have and raise children.

This is what I would call blaming the victim: "how/why the choices they make cause them to be victims"

Poverty is imposed on the poor. It is not a choice, and it is not made more bearable by the idea that the poor do not even deserve the basic rights enjoyed by other human beings, including the right to have, or be part of, a family.

[jmg257]

154. Bad wording on my part..I too figure they don't chose to be poor. I was questioning the

choice of having kids when one knows it will be very hard to afford them. And NOT that they might not deserve the right to have families, or anything else.

Other posts in this thread have shed light on the issue. So I am glad I have some things I hadn't thought about.

Thanks!

[bobbolink]

165. That is "US and THEM" thinking. Were you to walk in their (our!) shoes, it would look very

different to you.

Being on the very edge of survival, I, too, understand many things that I didn't really grasp before.

One of those is... what is POSSIBLE.

When you can't go to school, you can't get a good job, you do things that well-meaning "progressives" like to label as "self-destructive"... you sell drugs because YOU CAN.... If you're female, you have babies because YOU CAN.

When you have no future ahead of you, you do what is right in front of you.

It's quite simple, really, once you see what THEY are seeing.

It's time to break down this "US and THEM".

Look at the world from OUR VIEW. Then you'll understand.

[jmg257]

168. Thanks! I would never understand this without input such as yours,

as I would not be able to relate, just as you say.

Now I understand at least a little bit better.


:dunce:

[Two Americas]

170. children are human beings

Human beings are the source of all value - are the most valuable thing there is. They are not a choice, a burden, an expense, or a fashion accessory. Having children is not a "lifestyle choice." Children are not in the way. There is nothing of greater value that they are interfering with or preventing. How low have we fallen that we are even debating this?

Children are not something that you can or cannot afford to have. No children anywhere ever should be seen as an expense. It matters not whether or not you can "afford" them - it is the mentality of looking at human beings that way that is what is wrong. It is a GOOD thing that poor people are not buying into that. They have no material wealth, so they are able to see what is of real value - human beings, friends, family, community. If we lose that, we are doomed. The better off people are the problem, are the ones who are valuing material things more than they do human beings. THEIR material things, and the hell with those left out and left behind. The poor people made "bad choices," we are led to believe. They are to blame for their own misfortune. They could simply make better choices, and the problems would all be solved, were they not the way that they are - defective, wrong and bad. This thinking is cruel, anti-human, and immoral.

One cannot entertain the notion that children are something that you can or cannot afford without betraying a depraved moral stance that values material wealth more than human beings. That is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Here is what we cannot afford - we cannot afford this "choices" mentality and the pursuit of the material life and "success" at the expense of children being in poverty. That is what we cannot afford. It is those asking why poor people are making the choice of having children who are the cause of the problem; whose choices, whose lifestyle, whose attitudes and mentality we cannot afford. The price of sustaining that is far, far too high. THAT is the drain, the expense, the burden - not children.

[jmg257]

190. Now you lost me. What is "poverty"? Is it not a measure of material wealth? Some arbitrary

valued cut-off of enough vs. not enough? In reading your opinion, one would think we should measure wealth in the amount of children one has. OK - many people do - I know my wife's folks did - they had 10 kids. Then why complain about how much money they had? They struggled financially raising that many kids, but then again, they CHOSE to do so. They KNEW $$$ would be an issue. And still each child they had was a choice they made. To deny that is silly.

Each child born and raised needs a certain amount of monetary input - there IS an expense. To deny that is silly.

Using a little sense in planning one's own family because there WILL BE material costs involved is not the problem. Having an opinion that one, anyone, SHOULD use a little sense in planning their family is not THE problem. I think denying even a little self-responsibility in what one does is a problem. I am not talking about some theoretical "life choices" a person would've/could've/should've made that would suddenly magically improve their lives (and everyone else's), nor am I saying how not doing so makes people defective. Some things, like being BORN into poverty, are certainly NOT choices. Such children are are indeed victims, but of what? Of society only? or also of someone else's choice? They are surely a victim of a lack of money (or we wouldn't be having this discussion), no matter how valuable you think they are on their own. No matter how you would like to see it other-wise, having kids one KNOWS they can't afford IS an issue. And based on your information it is a very serious problem - for the children, and for society that should support them. I view that as a bit selfish, but maybe my morals are a bit skewed. I certainly admit to not knowing from 1st hand experience what it is like to be born and raised in poverty, and why people who do choose to have kids they can't afford. Many responses here helped explain that.

I do know that as a society we can afford plenty of things. Certainly we could do more for the poor, for those in poverty. But one thing we SHOULD not have to afford is people who fail to take responsibility for their own actions. Can we, should we do more to help people help themselves? Certainly. Can we break the cycle of poverty, and not just make people dependent on the state? I sure hope so. Clinton seemed to be making a pretty good start.

[Two Americas]

194. that is a point of view, yes

"Cycle of poverty" and "bad choices" and "doing more for the poor" and "dependent upon the state" and "they need to take responsibility for their own actions" and "they can't afford to have children" is certainly a point of view on the subject. You are making the right wing argument. Nothing wrong with that, you have every right to take that position, and some always will. It is precisely what is spouted every day on right wing radio, and repeated by those who listen to it. It is the Republican party position, and has permeated the public to such a degree that Democrats, as in your example of Clinton, think they have to compromise with it.

I am afraid that it is not a point of view I am willing to entertain anymore. It has been endlessly repeated until it is widely shared and it has been used by the extreme right wing to very destructive effect.

I think that the answers I have offered would completely demolish the argument you are making here for anyone seriously examining the subject. If you still want to see this through the lens of individualism, as though I had not written anything, I don't think there is anything to do about that.

[maryf]

195. Devil's advocacy here, a little...

As a teacher I do see kids who come from very poor families with lots of kids. One thing that does happen is that the parents do have to work more than one job to afford to feed and shelter the kids, and its getting harder and harder to find these jobs. This does mean that the kids do not get the parental time that they need, and the kids end up virtually raising themselves. The parents do say that they wish they had more time to be with their kids... I do not think the parents are wrong to have the kids, but the repercussions are not good for the kids...its society's fault, but the kids do lose out. Sometimes the parents lose the kids as they can't maintain the needed care...and it is frequently these kids who end up having kids themselves at 15 and 16...no judgment here, just what I've seen as a teacher for 20 years...

[Two Americas]

198. ok

I hope you are not saying this -

Well "they" need to change then, so that "they" can function better and be winners in this wonderful system - not perfect of course, but we are working to improve it. Perhaps a combination of a few small carrots held out in front of "them" and a big powerful stick in the form of punishments and threats from law enforcement and the courts will get "them" to mend their ways and get with the program. "We" only have so much time, patience and resources to waste on "them" so "they" had better get a move on and be quick about it if "they" know what is good for "them." This is how you get people to do what you want them to do, and getting people to do what we want them to do is how we improve society. If people don't comply, then they are in the way of improving society.

The Democrats won, so "they" no longer have any excuse. Time for us to look at "reality" now and be "practical."

If people are going to make "bad choices," well then they made their bed and will have to lie in it. Sure, we will help if we can here and there, as we can afford it, and if the Republicans let us, but people need to get off their asses and meet us half way if they expect any sympathy or hand outs from us.

Sure, society us ultimately at fault - and we are working on that, but progress takes time and we are making baby steps - but we need to be practical and do what we can to solve some of the problems right now. In the real world, it is clear that people having too many children is causing a lot of problems, and we want to change society, don't get us wrong, that is a big challenge and cannot happen overnight. Meanwhile, we can tell people to stop having so many children so that they can better adjust and survive in this system. While we progressives are working on it. To change it. Because that is just the kind of people we are. You can talk all of your high-faluting theories of social justice and equality all you want, but some of us are living in the real world, and people are having too many children and making the wrong choices and causing their own problems. That is just the way the world is, whether we like it or not, and we need to do the little things we can to help people and not let ourselves be distracted by radicals and purists with agendas and unrealistic and idealistic theories.

I have heard all of that socialism stuff, but of what practical value is it? For right now I am going to tell people that they need to start making the "right choices" and stop being so stupid. To help them. One thing that they need to do is stop having so damned many children. Then they need to get in the stick and start making smart financial decisions, and take the steps they need to take to get ahead and improve themselves. If this means counseling and medication, so that they face reality and start making the right choices, then so be it. There is no excuse for not moving forward and improving theor lives, and blaming other people or society is just an excuse.

[maryf]

215. I thought you knew me better than that...

Hope others who this does apply to take it to heart...I do see 14,15, 16 year old pregnant girls who are really stuck, I don't know what to say to them when they ask me for help, do you? I could really use some advice as I'm a teacher kids do come to...Help!

[jmg257]

206. As I posted several times, your efforts, your opinions were helpful.

And it turns out I do not agree with some of your ideas. Nothing wrong with them, just don't agree. Does that make me "right-wing" with regards to this issue, maybe, but I hope not!

Anyway, your input IS appreciated! I will think more on this subject.

cheers!

[Two Americas]

208. no problem

I think you are right. We disagree. I don't think that people with right wing ideas are evil, and I don't use it as a smear. I work in agriculture, and there is no shortage of conservative people there. I speak to groups of conservatives all of the time in real life, and have great success against the very arguments you are making. Not with everyone, and you may be a person who will not change their mind on this. That is OK.

However, here we are handicapped, and vulnerable in ways that we would never be in real life in trying to make left wing arguments. So you can understand that winning against conservative arguments here is more difficult, and gains little of anything compared to real life. Also, unlike the conservative farm groups I speak to, here we nominally have a "Democratic" group, so it is a little exasperating to run into more strenuous and deep-seated opposition here than I do with extremely conservative farm groups, and to have a worse success rate at persuading as well.

here, one would hope to be able to compare experiences and share ideas to help us battle against conservative arguments in real life, rather than spending all of our time battling the same conservative arguments right here, and doing that under the handicaps of online boards which are tailor made for spreading catchy conservation talking points and having them go unchallenged. In real life, that can never happen around me even with the most extremely conservative groups.

[Two Americas]

127. by the way

Throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, when a plant or animal is stressed, injured, oppressed, starved they reproduce more, not less. This is because every plant and animal "thinks" of their own kind as the thing of greatest value.

There is modern thinking here now among the privileged class that would have us no longer see human beings as the thing of greatest value. We see people as an expense, as a drain, as a burden, a cost, a commodity, an experiment, a science project. Obviously, that is a lie - certain humans are to be seen as a burden and a cost, others are not, because every human being sees themselves as valuable. Who is to be seen as a commodity and denied full and equal status? Those who can be seen as not "deserving" full humanity, for one reason or another. They "made the wrong choices" is one modern way to say "they are sinners and deserve punishment" while sounding "liberal" or "progressive."

When we oppress and impoverish a group of people, they reproduce more. Why? because on some fundamental level they know that it is human beings that are of the greatest value, and that it is insane for human beings to not see fellow human beings as the thing of greatest value, and that it is a ruling class lie that human beings are not value since the upper class people see themselves as valuable.

So why do poor people have children? So they can grow in numbers - and in strength, since everything of value and power comes from human beings - and then overthrow the tyranny of those who say they are making the "wrong choices" and cannot "afford" to live on this planet, that is why.

[bobbolink]

166. Exactly! The record number in a coyote litter is 19 -- NINETEEN in a litter!

That was in an area where the coyotes were being poisoned in large numbers.

So, they "overshoot" in order to survive as a species.

Very simple, really, when we look at the world from THEIR view, rather than trying to squeeze everyone into OUR view.

[Two Americas]

177. coyotes are more moral than "progressives"

Coyotes know what is most valuable in their world - coyotes. But "progressives" see their fellow human beings as a challenge, a burden, a problem, a science experiment, an annoyance, a hassle, an interference, and as not a priority.

Children are easy to be sympathetic about, and that is why the various charities always use photos of children to boost donations. But what about the Mothers? That is what I always think about. Every woman in the country should get a $50,000 stipend, no strings attached, in my opinion, for years and years of vital and unpaid work often under the most horrendous circumstances, and for being devalued by employers and underpaid. And what about the widows? What of the elderly?

Where will we get the money, how can we afford this? We tax the assholes who ran off with a trophy wife and who live in ease and obscene luxury with loot they made preying on the the rest of us, who lord it over the rest of us, who dictate the terms and conditions of our lives, who have everything their way. A fraction of the money going to the predators among us as bonuses and the like every year would house every person in the country, would provide universal health care, would give everyone an income and a fair chance to live and thrive.

[JeffR]

149. It's as simple as this.

People breed. Rich people do, middle class people do, and poor people do.

Or allow me to get even more simplistic: people fuck.

As noted in another answer to your post, easy, affordable access to birth control and abortion services is yet another thing that most of us can take for granted. The poor cannot take these things for granted.

[maryf]

151. Especially when they are made to feel guilty

for using birth control or deciding they can't afford to keep a baby...many young girls consider babies as a source of unconditional love; we educators have our hands full trying to counter this one...

[G_j]

106. absolutely criminal... K&R

[Fireweed247]

121. At least those of us living in poverty don't feel so alone anymore

bad joke-sorry :spank:

Maybe we should be specific and united in our demands? I can't help thinking that health problems have led to many people's financial problems so maybe we should be demanding Universal Health Care? Besides that, it is clear the main thing that people need right now is low income housing and with a huge amount of homes sitting empty these days, we should be demanding that the government bailout the people by purchasing homes to be used for low income housing purposes.

[Two Americas]

132. why are we here?

Do not dismiss the value of knowing that you are not alone. It is the most important human need. People are first isolated, their reality and existence denied, and then they become poor and desperate. We need to understand cause and effect about this.

It all starts with not being alone, with recognizing each other and being recognized, with being heard and listening to others, with finding and hearing the truth. Nothing can be done without that. With that, anything can be done.

[OneGrassRoot]

133. I agree, TA. Acknowledgement is HUGE....

a necessary first step.

K&R

:)

[bobbolink]

167. And in large part, we are ISOLATED from each other because we INTERNALIZE the

ugly shit we get from the muddleclass people... including "progressives", and turn it onto each other.

So that we have NOWhere to go to feel like we have any worth.

I see it all the time.

I deal with it all the time.

And I'm empty, and I'm done.

[maryf]

182. A quote of validation for you...

from Paolo Friere: "Self-depreciation is another characteristic of the oppressed, which derives from their internalization of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. So often do they hear that they are good for nothing... ...that in the end they become convinced of their own unfitness."

IMO What is sad is that many of those who are oppressed, including the "muddleclass" are ignorant of that fact and take on the role of those they would aspire to be, the oppressors...hence victimizing those they should be joining in cause...

[maryf]

153. and building new housing units

the fact that so many buildings have reached the expiration date of having to satisfy section 8 requirements is causing a huge number of units to be lost to privatization. single payer health care is critical to stop people from bankruptcy and needing to apply for section 8, but the lack of low income housing is the number one issue to be focussed on regarding homelessness, including homeless kids...When parents can't find housing how can they provide for their kids??

[Two Americas]

173. I am going to disagree here Mary

I don't like this "low income housing" idea. It reminds me of building pet shelters or kennels or refugee camps.

We need to make the existing housing available to people - the good housing, the standard housing, the housing integrated into communities, the housing just like everyone else has.

"Low income housing" suggests that there then must be "high income housing" for the better people, and we have set up two tiers. The problem is not the lack of low income housing, for "them," for "those people" over there, the permanent underclass, "the poor." The problem is that there is too much high income housing, and that is caused by speculation and greed and extortion. The other problem is that incomes are too low, including for those who are not working. Housing is overpriced, wages are too low, social safety network subsidies are virtually nonexistent.

The idea of low income housing is a neo-liberal way to compromise with the system that is causing the problems. It marginalizes and isolates people who are in poverty, and makes it more difficult to get out of poverty, and leads to ghettos and corruption and abuse.

Give homeless people money - enough money to afford average housing, quality housing, housing just like everyone else has. The only people who would lose in that scenario are the speculators, investors, manipulators and profiteers. Too bad for them. It is an obscenity that people are playing "free market" games with such a fundamental human need to line their own pockets at the expense of the rest of us.

we did this in agriculture, successfully. We reigned in capital and forced the banks to support the producers, the
Let the "free market" predators go play games in Dubai. Let the people here live in dignity and security.

Are people here lazy and unproductive because they benefit from subsidized food? No. They are more productive. Were farmers driven from the land because they no longer had "incentive" to get rich? No. The opposite is true.

Get the boot heel of the banks off of the necks of the people. It can be done, it has been done, it must be done. We should never be advocating any sort of compromise on this, and "low income housing" is a compromise, a serious compromise.

The banks - the "financial industry," Wall Street, the investors and speculators and manipulators - own everything in this country: the homes, the land, the companies, the shops, the factories, the government. Yet they produce nothing. Why do people feel that we need to compromise on this, work within the system? Why do people think that this cannot be done or would be difficult or take a long time? How clear does it need to be that a small group of blood suckers is destroying everything, and that they could easily be stopped? Stopped now. All we lack is clarity and courage. WE lack those things, not "them," not the people, not the politicians. WE are the problem. We are the group arguing for compromise, the only group that is doing that. We are the obstacle, and the fault is in our thinking, This is easy to correct. Let's correct it right now, here, today this instant. Let's stop looking for the problems over there, or in other people.

[maryf]

176. Affordable decent housing for all...

Is that a better term? I hate that term "low income housing" I agree with you 100%, I actually just corrected myself in another thread before reading this!! Thanks, friend, I'll not use that term again!! (although thats the government term, we need to get them to change the terminology...and how they take care of the people, while we're talking about it!)

[Two Americas]

178. no problem

Gave me a chance to rant.

The government can only be as good as we demand that it be, and will never be better than we demand it to be. That is why sitting back and "hoping" that any elected official - no matter how charismatic or brilliant - will do something for us, and telling people not to criticize or dissent is a very dangerous idea.

Self-government is not a spectator sport, and we win nothing just because certain elected officials win.

[maryf]

180. Hear, hear...

We are the people, the of, by, and for people of a democratic government. Our officials are elected representatives, elected to represent our wishes in votes, not to tell us what we should be wanting, but listening to us tell them how to vote and represent us in legislation...

[bobbolink]

187. Of course, that would be better... best. BUT..... that means everyone having a BASIC LIVING

Nixon tried to do that.... since then, there is NO WAY to make that happen.

So, we have MILLIONS of homeless people.

Do we strive for the best--and purist--way, or what would be DOABLE???

We can't even get DUers to write/call for Low-Income HOUSING.. can you imagine trying to get "progressives" to DEMAND a BAsic Living INCOME for ALL????

I, also, don't go for compromises.

BUT.... living in my breaking down car for 3 years... now THAT'S a "compromise"!!!

How many people must DIE homeless before we take this all seriously??

[Two Americas]

188. understood

I would not advocate for a guaranteed basic living wage income if I thought that it were impossible. I don't think it is being a purist. I also do not think that we have to choose - low income housing or a guaranteed minimum living income. I cannot see that low income housing is more doable, or more practical, or quicker. That is what the liberals and progressives tell us, yes - moderation, practicality, baby steps, etc. etc. That has not worked. I do not believe it will ever work, because it is not really about what is practical or doable, it is a clever way to avoid and dismiss and postpone the issue.

I think we are a lot more likely to get more people taking this seriously and to get people a more motivated by taking the approach I suggested.

Sometimes it is a lot more effective to shoot higher and to ask people for more than it is to shoot low and ask very little of people. People would be more likely to dedicate their entire lives to this - were they to see the truth - then they are now likely to devote a few minutes to it. People are more likely to fight for a comprehensive and idealistic vision then they are to fight for little practical steps. Liberals advocate baby steps and practicality because that discourages, bores, and un-inspires people, and that means they will leave it to the "experts." That gives the liberals who advocate for it career security and positions of power and influence in the poverty and charity industry, and for that to happen the rabble must be kept at bay, and remain passive observers. So they make the issue as esoteric, boring, isolated, technical-sounding and obscure as they possibly can. That effectively limits interest and participation.

[bobbolink]

191. I'm certainly not one who advocates "babysteps"-- A lot of people get very put out with me

bECAUSE I reject that nonsense! They call ME a "purist".

"I cannot see that low income housing is more doable, or more practical, or quicker."

I certainly see it that way.... there ARE cities and organizations that are DOING IT NOW. Maybe it's just that I'm desperate, eh?

"I think we are a lot more likely to get more people taking this seriously and to get people a more motivated by taking the approach I suggested."

Then, by all means, please get a movement started to this end!!! I would certainly cheerlead this. But to just put me down for saying that what is already being done in some places is impossible, while this is more important, then not actually doing anything with it is very hurtful to me and to others.

[bobbolink]

193. A quote from Martin Luther King that validates exactly what you are saying:

Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe? Expediency asks the question: Is it politic? Vanity asks the question: Is it popular? But conscience asks the question: Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular -- but he must take it simply because conscience tells him it is right.

- Martin Luther King Jr.,
from his address, "To Chart Our Course for the Future" (1968).

I will also continue to say that striving for Low-Income Housing isn't a compromise, or expedient.. it is a LIFE NECESSITY.

[Two Americas]

211. very good

Thanks.

I am not saying we should not be striving for Low-Income Housing. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I am saying let's be careful to not get caught in a trap on that.

[Two Americas]

210. sorry

I certainly did not mean to put you down.

[EFerrari]

134. Kick

[RadiationTherapy]

135. This article is BULLSHIT and LIES. There are NOT that many starving kids.

I know this, because every time I criticize the rich I hear about how much good they do with their money; how much charity they donate to.

This article must be lying because Americans, especially very very rich ones, are good people who earned their money and donate to the poor.

[mntleo2]

136. LOL! Uhhhh No they do not give to the poor ...

...as far a giving to charity, New Hampshire, one of the richest states, gives far less proportionally to charity than Georgia the poorest state.

But I DO love your sarcasm cos yeah, the rich are just better people since well, they are rich doncha know!
:sarcasm: :rofl:

Cat In Seattle

[Two Americas]

140. let me help

One example of a rich person doing good is sufficient to dismiss all talk of economic justice and equality, and to refute any criticism of the predatory things wealthy people are doing.

One example of a poor person doing something bad is sufficient to dismiss and ridicule any who are expressing empathy with poor people or talking about economic justice.

See how that works?

Repeat after me:

"Not all rich people are evil."

"Not all poor people are saints."

If either of those were true - of all rich people were evil, or of all poor people were saints - then and only then would poverty be seen as a legitimate cause worthy of any attention, in the view of far too many people.

[RadiationTherapy]

141. All rich people may not be evil,

But all rich people cause poverty. They have to on account of how much they have and how much others are suffering.

[Two Americas]

142. of course

I agree completely.

[EFerrari]

146. Kick

[Kurovski]

169. Kick. (nt)

[Kurovski]

171. Kick. (nt)

[TahitiNut]

184. Punt.

:thumbsup:

[Kurovski]

201. Kick. (nt)

[tigereye]

212. it's shocking - we worry about so much ridiculous crap and allow this...

It's even worse than in the past. :(

[bobbolink]

213. Exactly... some skewed priorities. BUT... say that, and be prepared to be flamed.

I've been.

It's sad just how defensive people get when their priorities are shown to them. Which is why it continues to get worse.

:( indeed!

[EFerrari]

216. Kick

[Tindalos]

217. Kick n/t

[EFerrari]

218. Kick