Poverty gap in US has widened under Bush

[Ugg]

Link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2308416.ece)


I'm sure it's only because people have squandered their education. (Sarcasm)


The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.

The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000. Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population, which recently surpassed the 300 million mark.

Oops, those too stupid to invest in the stockmarket or not republican enough to suckle at the bushco's breast are simply out of luck.


The causes of the problem are no mystery to sociologists and political scientists. The share of national income going to corporate profits has far outstripped the share going to wages and salaries.

[4nr-]

Link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2308416.ece)
The causes of the problem are no mystery to sociologists and political scientists. The share of national income going to corporate profits has far outstripped the share going to wages and salaries.

Outrageous. The distribution of income was bad before. How could anybody allow it to worsen?

[Desertrat]

Well, corporate profits accrue to the stockholders--which is universities, pension funds, individual investors. Folks like you or your friends or relatives. And without corporate profits there wouldn't be corporate jobs, whether it's on a farm on in a factory or bank or with a home-builder. Without corporate profits there wouldn't be money for R&D and for investment in new facilities and expansion. It ain't done by good wishes and magic.

And, face it, folks who are generationally involved in some form of "welfare" skew the picture. Much of their housing costs, food and utilities are not included as "income", even though there is a value to them. These studies only look at cash-flow income. You add in the illegals who only get part-time work, and you have even more people below the line.

Jobs going overseas and the looming recession are gonna make it even more of a separation, I imagine...

'Rat

[Swarmlord]

Well, no kidding. You figure that there's no limit on the upside of success, but despite their attempts, the poor can't figure out how to sink any lower than zero (although through the miracle of credit cards and payday loans they're making great strides in this area).

Massage the numbers right and this phenomenom has existed since the invention of currency.

[leekohler]

Well, no kidding. You figure that there's no limit on the upside of success, but despite their attempts, the poor can't figure out how to sink any lower than zero (although through the miracle of credit cards and payday loans they're making great strides in this area).


Here you go again with your "the poor are immoral and stupid" bit. :rolleyes:

[miloblithe]

Swarmlord or Desertrat, would you care to explain why the number of people living on under $5,000 (individuals) / $10,000 (families) a day grew 56% to 16 million? Or care to explain how that is "massaging" the numbers or skewing the picture?

Or can you admit your statements are BS?

[QuarterSwede]

Well, corporate profits accrue to the stockholders--which is universities, pension funds, individual investors. Folks like you or your friends or relatives. And without corporate profits there wouldn't be corporate jobs, whether it's on a farm on in a factory or bank or with a home-builder. Without corporate profits there wouldn't be money for R&D and for investment in new facilities and expansion. It ain't done by good wishes and magic.

And, face it, folks who are generationally involved in some form of "welfare" skew the picture. Much of their housing costs, food and utilities are not included as "income", even though there is a value to them. These studies only look at cash-flow income. You add in the illegals who only get part-time work, and you have even more people below the line.

Jobs going overseas and the looming recession are gonna make it even more of a separation, I imagine...

'Rat
Interesting post. I especially like the bit about, "much of their housing costs, food and utilities are not included as "income", even though there is a value to them." Too true. I know a few people who have subsidized living. The reason they don't get out of it is because its much easier (cheaper) not too.

Personally, I don't think six years is long enough to affect economic numbers that much. I think one presidents "reign" runs into another's.

[Swarmlord]

Here you go again with your "the poor are immoral and stupid" bit. :rolleyes:

There you go putting words into my mouth again. :rolleyes:

What I just pointed out is the phenomenon that occurs when comparing a distribution that can expand infinitely on one side and has no where to go on the other. This mathematical phenomenon would exist whether it was income distribution being discussed or maintenance data on a gas turbine engine.

Now, addressing the actual numbers in the article...anyone else think that maybe these numbers are skewed by a number of people in society that make exactly zero? What about the 15 million estimated illegals? How are they tallied? How many of these supposed "poor" individuals are part time people, students, teenagers with summer jobs, etc? People that operate outside the economy whether black market or under the table? They counting the "income" that prisoners make while in prison too?

See where I have a problem with these so called economic studies and numbers involving the so called economic bottom?

[Ugg]

Now, addressing the actual numbers in the article...anyone else think that maybe these numbers are skewed by a number of people in society that make exactly zero? What about the 15 million estimated illegals? How are they tallied? How many of these supposed "poor" individuals are part time people, students, teenagers with summer jobs, etc? People that operate outside the economy whether black market or under the table? They counting the "income" that prisoners make while in prison too?

See where I have a problem with these so called economic studies and numbers involving the so called economic bottom?

What you are refusing to acknowledge is the fact that the numbers based on income have gotten 26% worse since 2000. Are there 26% more illegal immigrants or students since then? Highly unlikely.

Since unemployment has remained fairly static since 2000, it's very likely that many of these extreme poor are working.

It could well include retirees who were screwed over by Enron or Worldcom-like pyramid schemes.

No, that's simply not possible in your narrowly defined world where the poor are responsible for their poverty.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>No, that's simply not possible in your narrowly defined world where the poor are responsible for their poverty.

They aren't? I must have missed that class where dropping out of highschool, developing a criminal record, or otherwise making oneself unemployable or having limited job skills led to high paying careers. You think that these people are making $5 grand a year because no one accepts their nursing license or has a car, furnace or airconditioner to repair?

Narrowly defined? Far from it. It's this "inner city slum" mentality that's narrow minded in my opinion. We didn't have squat when I was a kid, but with an axe and a little elbow grease we had firewood during the rough times. I bet these $5 grand a year rocket scientists you're so quick to defend couldn't split a cord of wood without losing a limb.

Just how far are we expected to bend over backwards to save full grown adults from themselves?

[takao]

well it slowly happens here too ... it's the outcome of the globalization : sooner or later the middle class will be gone

[Ugg]

We didn't have squat when I was a kid, but with an axe and a little elbow grease we had firewood during the rough times.

Obviously the only question is: why were your parents so poverty stricken? According to your endless tirades, there's simply no excuse for poverty.....

[leekohler]

They aren't? I must have missed that class where dropping out of highschool, developing a criminal record, or otherwise making oneself unemployable or having limited job skills led to high paying careers. You think that these people are making $5 grand a year because no one accepts their nursing license or has a car, furnace or airconditioner to repair?

Narrowly defined? Far from it. It's this "inner city slum" mentality that's narrow minded in my opinion. We didn't have squat when I was a kid, but with an axe and a little elbow grease we had firewood during the rough times. I bet these $5 grand a year rocket scientists you're so quick to defend couldn't split a cord of wood without losing a limb.

Just how far are we expected to bend over backwards to save full grown adults from themselves?

Once again, I reiterate my earlier statement. I was hardly putting words in your mouth as you have so eloquently demonstrated just now.

[takao]

Obviously the only question is: why were your parents so poverty stricken? According to your endless tirades, there's simply no excuse for poverty.....

well around here it would be more of the reverse since here you can't go into the woods and chop down trees so easily just like i can't take a gun and start hunting deers in the woods

[Bobdude161]

hmmm gotta love the American Dream. Especially when it can be obtained with 23% interest with a 48 month payment plan! We are waaaay too influenced by shiny products that retail stores constantly throw at us and give us these impulse buys. Especially Macs. ;)

This is why I am hesitant to offer credit cards as an option at my work. Just feels sooo wrong sometimes, like I'm putting people into more debt. :( :(

[Dont Hurt Me]

The rich get richer(Ceo class) and screw everyone else. Thats Corporate America. You cant move all your factory base to Communist China like Apple and so many others and expect it not to hurt our own Country meaning working class. CEO's could care a less about this class because they operate out of pure Greed of $$$.

[pdham]

They aren't? I must have missed that class where dropping out of highschool, developing a criminal record, or otherwise making oneself unemployable or having limited job skills led to high paying careers. You think that these people are making $5 grand a year because no one accepts their nursing license or has a car, furnace or airconditioner to repair?

Narrowly defined? Far from it. It's this "inner city slum" mentality that's narrow minded in my opinion. We didn't have squat when I was a kid, but with an axe and a little elbow grease we had firewood during the rough times. I bet these $5 grand a year rocket scientists you're so quick to defend couldn't split a cord of wood without losing a limb.

Just how far are we expected to bend over backwards to save full grown adults from themselves?

I... umm...

I was going to respond to this but I dont think I could possibly convey what I am thinking through the typed word.....

I wil let the more elequent people on these boards do it for me.

[Zwhaler]

OMG not this again! Look. Bush's goal is to turn the US into a third world country, where 5 percent of the population owns 95&#37; of the country (and has 95% of the money) and the rest of the country lives in poverty. He has started this process with No Child Left Behind. If you really (and I mean really) want to know why, just ask. But expect a long explanation.

A third world country is largely a country with no middle class. He has started the process, and if he had his way, me, and every one else in the middle class, would be homeless. I hope that swine gets impeached.

[Swarmlord]

Obviously the only question is: why were your parents so poverty stricken? According to your endless tirades, there's simply no excuse for poverty.....

Father was floor covering installer and piano tuner. Stay at home mother. That's what they wanted to become and they didn't whine about it or compare their lot in life with someone else.

I guess if you ran the numbers we were poor, but we didn't think we were any different than anyone else. We cut a lot of wood and canned a lot of fruit and vegetables to get through the year, that's for sure.

Maybe now you can understand why I don't have a lot of compassion for young adults who's only skill is to operate a TV remote and figure out whether the zipper in their pants is in the front of the back.

[leekohler]

Father was floor covering installer and piano tuner. Stay at home mother. That's what they wanted to become and they didn't whine about it or compare their lot in life with someone else.

I guess if you ran the numbers we were poor, but we didn't think we were any different than anyone else. We cut a lot of wood and canned a lot of fruit and vegetables to get through the year, that's for sure.

Maybe now you can understand why I don't have a lot of compassion for young adults who's only skill is to operate a TV remote and figure out whether the zipper in their pants is in the front of the back.

Once again, you keep saying it! The poor are immoral and/or stupid. We get it.

You had good parents, it sounds like. I was in a situation similar to yours and I had good parents too. Some people don't- that can lead to a cycle of poverty that's extremely tough to break. But that's only one reason poverty occurs. There are many others.

[pdham]

Father was floor covering installer and piano tuner. Stay at home mother. That's what they wanted to become and they didn't whine about it or compare their lot in life with someone else.

I guess if you ran the numbers we were poor, but we didn't think we were any different than anyone else. We cut a lot of wood and canned a lot of fruit and vegetables to get through the year, that's for sure.

Maybe now you can understand why I don't have a lot of compassion for young adults who's only skill is to operate a TV remote and figure out whether the zipper in their pants is in the front of the back.


Oh, so you had a stay at home mom to read to you, play with you, help you with homework, and generaly look out for your welfare. Your right that is the exact same thing as an inner city child whose parents both work two jobs (if they even have two parents) and who are raised by family members that watch 15 other kids or are raised by brothers and sisters.

[Swarmlord]

Once again, you keep saying it! The poor are immoral and/or stupid. We get it.

You had good parents, it sounds like. I was in a situation similar to yours and I had good parents too. Some people don't- that can lead to a cycle of poverty that's extremely tough to break. But that's only one reason poverty occurs. There are many others.

I don't get the immoral bit though. To be fair I think a lot of people are "stupid" although I never use the term.

[Ugg]

I don't get the immoral bit though. To be fair I think a lot of people are "stupid" although I never use the term.

You just did. What's the point of thinking it but not saying it? Are you inherently dishonest?

[miloblithe]

OK, take cooks for example:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos161.htm#earnings

There are 3 million cooks/prep workers plus 125,000 head chefs in this country. The head chefs make good money, but for the other 3 million people, the median income ranges from $7 to about $10 an hour, so let's call the middle ground $8.50. That means 1.5 million people make about $17,000 or less working full time. There are plenty of other jobs like this and the point is this: there are not enough high paying jobs in existence for all these people to get higher-paying jobs, regardless of what skills they may aquire. No matter how educated our workforce is, there will still be tens of millions of short-order cooks, cashiers, sales clerks, food service workers, and so on who work their asses off and deserve not to live in poverty.

And here's the most important point: when you're poor, the margins make a HUGE difference. If you make $1000 a month and your basic bills take up $800 of that, a raise to $1100 will make a large difference to your life. If you make $100,000 a month and get a raise to $110,000, it really doesn't affect you, and doesn't compare in the least to 10 poor people getting one tenth of it each.

[leekohler]

I don't get the immoral bit though.

Here you go:

... developing a criminal record...

I would say that would be immoral.

[Swarmlord]

You just did. What's the point of thinking it but not saying it? Are you inherently dishonest?

Asking a question and then slamming the person for answering it using the word in question is called baiting. Look it up.

[Swarmlord]

I would say that would be immoral.

You don't think that earning yourself a criminal record and then being shocked that no one wants to give you a high paying job is less than intelligent?:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

You don't think that earning yourself a criminal record and then being shocked that no one wants to give you a high paying job is less than intelligent?:rolleyes:

I would say it falls under the immoral category as well. What are you arguing here? That committing crimes isn't immoral?

[pseudobrit]

Father was floor covering installer and piano tuner. Stay at home mother. That's what they wanted to become and they didn't whine about it or compare their lot in life with someone else.

I guess if you ran the numbers we were poor, but we didn't think we were any different than anyone else. We cut a lot of wood and canned a lot of fruit and vegetables to get through the year, that's for sure.

Maybe now you can understand why I don't have a lot of compassion for young adults who's only skill is to operate a TV remote and figure out whether the zipper in their pants is in the front of the back.

So in your family's case the lack of ambition can be put down to contentment.
When it's others you're thinking about, it becomes stupidity or laziness.

[Desertrat]

Zwhaler, I hate to tell you, but the decline in buying power on the part of the middle class began in the 1970s. The inflation brought about by LBJ's guns'n'butter policy led to prices rising faster than wages.

Fed Chairman Volcker, during Reagan's tenure, has been about the only sorta-salvation as to the rate of decay in that buying power. Post-Volcker, the downhill slide resumed.

Also during these last 40 or so years, the total tax take by all levels of government has increased. People focus on income tax, although for many it's not even noticeable. State and local taxes take a higher percentage of one's income than income tax if you're around $50K per year or less. Add in FICA and income tax and folks above $50K are stung for around 45&#37; to 50% of their gross incomes. For the poorer among us, sales taxes and property taxes (included in rents, of course) are a big hit.

Which is a large part of why both parents have to work, which creates latchkey kids, who generally don't do as well in life as those growing up within the older family structure...

And a couple of dozen other factors...

'Rat

[Swarmlord]

<snip> Add in FICA and income tax and folks above $50K are stung for around 45% to 50% of their gross incomes. For the poorer among us, sales taxes and property taxes (included in rents, of course) are a big hit.

Which is a large part of why both parents have to work, which creates latchkey kids, who generally don't do as well in life as those growing up within the older family structure...

And a couple of dozen other factors...

'Rat

Ain't that the truth. If the government wasn't taxing middle class families as if they were Kennedy's and Heinz-Kerry's they'd be more capable of taking care of their own needs as they see fit.

[leekohler]

Ain't that the truth. If the government wasn't taxing middle class families as if they were Kennedy's and Heinz-Kerry's they'd be more capable of taking care of their own needs as they see fit.

That was rather liberal of you.

[Swarmlord]

That was rather liberal of you.

Told you I was a Libertarian. :)

[leekohler]

Told you I was a Libertarian. :)

I was also surprised to see that come out of desertrat's mouth too. I thought the whole idea was to soak the middle class and give tax breaks to the wealthy. ;)

[mischief]

I was also surprised to see that come out of desertrat's mouth too. I thought the whole idea was to soak the middle class and give tax breaks to the wealthy. ;)

I've been watching DR and SL get slammed reflexively in discussions like this one every bit as much as I've seen you get slammed in the conservative-dominated threads. The Forum's gotten a bit knee-jerk for me recently, hence my lack of posting. Think more, slam less folks.

I consider myself a radical centrist: I can count on both sides to be horrified that I will agree with the parts of both arguements that are reasonable and or sensible.

The problem with this discussion is that it rapidly devolves into "elitists vs. populists". Neither view reflects reality fully.

The bitch of it is that both sides have accurate data in some areas and both sides will fall back on arguements that stretch the boundries of common sense when cornered on their poor logic.

The USA is a very large place. The precise mechanisms that create poverty vary from locality to locality. Really an overall downturn in popular income is more a sign of increasingly poor diversity of employment and increasingly corrupt Unions and Legislatures. What makes all of this possible is the overall resillience of the US economy. If this country was closer to the bone like Germany, the UK or Japan there'd be more pressure to run a tight ship and value the populace. There is no magic bullet in such a large system.

[Desertrat]

"I was also surprised to see that come out of desertrat's mouth too"

Huh? Whuzzat mean?

Among other things that makes it difficult in discussions like this is that "the wealthy" don't have a lot of taxable income as such. For instance, aside from any shelters, tax-free municipal bonds can provide a lot of money, but they're tax-free. That's why they only pay 4% to 6% instead of a good bit more. But you can live pretty good on 4% tax-free of several million bucks. Some variant of that theme is what makes life good for truly wealthy folks. Just guessing, "truly wealthy" in today's world would have to be up in the several hundred million dollar net worth, I'm guessing. I've read we have about 1,000 billionaires in the U.S., mostly courtesy of the dot-com daze.

I'm guessing "lower economic middle class" as the approximate range of a family income of $40K to $60K. "Upper e.m.c." would probably run on up to around $100K, I guess. Maybe $200K? I dunno. Read three articles, get five different opinions. Kinda like car-wreck witnesses.

I ran the numbers maybe ten years back, pretending I was still in my old job with a wife and a couple of kids and still living in Austintatious. The real-world pay-scale for the State of Texas was right at $50K a year at that time. I figured FICA, income tax, sales tax, property tax, and spent some time on making reasonable estimates on the excise and other little hidden taxes. (The same job, now, would probably be above $60K, but I haven't tried to update.)

Income tax? 12%. Total taxes to all taxing authority? 48%. Which is why I don't get much involved in all these "Flat tax!" or "National sales tax!" arguments. That's not where the problem really is, IMO.

And the deepest tooth-marks are on the poor, from that difference between "Total taxes" and "Income tax": For me, that was 36%. A third, call it. Serious hickey, when your gross income has you pickin' poop with the chickens.

It ain't Bush's deal, or even his predecessor presidents. It's a mix of the Congress, the schools, and the legislatures that bite and bite. Been going on in increasing fashion since LBJ's Great Society programs hit their stride. Call it forty years, now.

I dunno as how I'd go to praising England's and Germany's systems. From what I've seen firsthand, we have a higher percentage of folks doing materially good here than they do there. Now, whether or not "materially good" is good or bad is a whole 'nother argument.

:), 'Rat

[spork183]

They aren't? I must have missed that class where dropping out of highschool, developing a criminal record, or otherwise making oneself unemployable or having limited job skills led to high paying careers. You think that these people are making $5 grand a year because no one accepts their nursing license or has a car, furnace or airconditioner to repair?

Narrowly defined? Far from it. It's this "inner city slum" mentality that's narrow minded in my opinion. We didn't have squat when I was a kid, but with an axe and a little elbow grease we had firewood during the rough times. I bet these $5 grand a year rocket scientists you're so quick to defend couldn't split a cord of wood without losing a limb.

Just how far are we expected to bend over backwards to save full grown adults from themselves?

To me, the question is where it starts. I'm a teacher. If a kid comes to me with inadequate nutrition, inadequate healthcare, inadequate dental care, etc, how will that child have the same chance and opportunities as the one who comes in with a full belly, full medical, full dental, and a stay at home mom? Oh, forgot, I really don't have that dilemma, because those students go to private school. Now, if we would only give students vouchers for private school, it would make all those differences magically disappear. The rot starts early for these kids.

Your ability to pull yourself out of a poor childhood demonstrates only that YOU were able to do that. It doesn't make it more likely that others can. As for those rocket scientists and splitting wood, they never learned because they didn't have the luxury of a wood stove. They heated with the gas cooktop, when the gas was on. But there shouldn't be any reason they can't be successful in our democracy.

[solvs]

I guess if you ran the numbers we were poor, but we didn't think we were any different than anyone else. We cut a lot of wood and canned a lot of fruit and vegetables to get through the year, that's for sure.
Well since everyone is just like you... except, wait, they aren't.

Your lack of empathy continues to astound me. What about those with medical conditions, or mental disorders, or just plain people who aren't as smart or talented as you are? Should they suffer because some kid who was born into riches is better than one born into poverty? Or that one who got lucky is better than one who isn't so lucky? We were supposed to be moving away from the caste system, where everyone was equal. When a very small amount of people are making more money than the rest of us combined, while one little thing such as an illness or accident can potentially devastate a family, and mentally disabled people roam the streets, I'm thinking the current system isn't working as well as those who are better off claim it is.

I find it ironic that those who espouse Christian values seem to be the first to start saying it's survival of the fittest when it comes to economics. It also seems weird that the poorest among us seem to vote against their better interest for the Republicans due to those "values". Looking back at how things were around the Depression, or how a certain motor company felt it was better to spend money paying people off if they got hurt rather than pay for a recall, or that the oil companies have been having record profits while gas prices continue to go through the roof... maybe unbridled capitalism isn't such a great thing.

It ain't Bush's deal
Not completely, but he and his ilk certainly aren't helping. And yeah, they are making things worse. While we aren't exactly becoming a caste system, most of us aren't real happy about the way things are heading. I'm not advocating Communism or socialism, but there has to be some balance. Citizens need rules and laws, so do businesses, and I think it's time government started caring more about some things they're doing that might not be so ethical than a gay couple that wants to get married or a woman who's brain has turned to mush. You know, stuff that actually affects other people.

Government is supposed to do what the people can't, and I'm thinking they're dropping the ball on this one.

[leekohler]

"I was also surprised to see that come out of desertrat's mouth too"

Huh? Whuzzat mean?



Sorry- I made an assumption. ;)

[Desertrat]

solvs, from watching these last 40-some years, two things:

1. Government can't solve social problems.

2. Efforts to do so mostly exacerbate them.

Now, obviously a lot of people disagree with #1. Tough. #1 has been proven by #2. That's just history, not any sort of me saying it makes it so. All ya gotta do is have read the numerous media articles and learned studies, these last few decades. Every problem we've had when LBJ first got going has gotten worse over time--as we've spent ever-larger amounts of tax-money.

It doesn't matter what is my opinion or what I think about it all. It's what I'm forced to conclude from what I've seen. I've said numerous times that I have no politically-viable answer...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

solvs, from watching these last 40-some years, two things:

1. Government can't solve social problems.

Society solves social problems. And government is a facet of society.

Certainly you can argue that the government helps solve social problems by, for example, regulating housing and working conditions. Or by capping interest rates on credit cards. Or by providing free education. Or clean water.

I could go on, but your opinion is already wrong. The government serves a purpose in securing a better civilization for the commonwealth.

I think what you may be referring to is direct intervention. Which is something that has met with very limited success in terms of improving the nation's quality of life.

[Desertrat]

I'm talking exactly about direct intervention, which is strongly contributary to the worsening of many facets of our daily lives.

As for things like credit-card interest, that's 1) self-regulating by greed and competition (greed, in that by dropping a point or two, a greater total volume of business accrues) and 2) by the self-healing process of the foolish user going broke. It is not government's business to protect people from themselves--unless you include our War on Drugs with that.

'Rat

[pdham]

solvs, from watching these last 40-some years, two things:

1. Government can't solve social problems.

'Rat

I dont know, it seems other governments around the world are in the businesses of solving and managing social ptoblems. I think more accurately people in this country wont let the government solve social problems because that would mean having some of their pivilage taken from them.

[Desertrat]

"Won't let"?

Lessee: We've spent somewhere in the vicinity of $4 trillion tax dollars in the War on Poverty. Therefore, there are fewer people living in poverty, right?

We've spent tens of billions of tax dollars via the Dept of Edu, so there aren't any discipline problems in the public schools, the quality of the graduates has increased over these last 45 years, and people are pulling their kids out of private schools for the superior advantages of the public schools?

Due to EEOC programs, there is no more racism. Or is there?

Won't let? All this stuff is federal law. "One size fits all, nationwide."

'Rat

[Swarmlord]

I dont know, it seems other governments around the world are in the businesses of solving and managing social ptoblems. I think more accurately people in this country wont let the government solve social problems because that would mean having some of their pivilage taken from them.

Unfortunately, those that have less like to equate those of us that are successful after a lifetime of working hard and doing without with those few that have had it handed to them.

I still don't believe any problems are solved by wealth transfer. The government is there to provide a framework and infrastructure to allow people to achieve and they can encourage people to succeed by using carrots rather than sticks.

[pdham]

"Won't let"?

Lessee: We've spent somewhere in the vicinity of $4 trillion tax dollars in the War on Poverty. Therefore, there are fewer people living in poverty, right?

We've spent tens of billions of tax dollars via the Dept of Edu, so there aren't any discipline problems in the public schools, the quality of the graduates has increased over these last 45 years, and people are pulling their kids out of private schools for the superior advantages of the public schools?

Due to EEOC programs, there is no more racism. Or is there?

Won't let? All this stuff is federal law. "One size fits all, nationwide."

'Rat

I certainly did not apply that there are no problems....

I guess I should have been clearer. I do not deny we have spent money on "attempts" to fix social injustices. But, what is the reason all of those have fallen short? I would argue it is because the culture of this country, and in some instances the law, does not allow successful redistribution of wealth and opportunities. And in many instances short of redistributing funds to the institutions that need it, all the federal money in the world isn’t going to fix the gaps (see the no child left behind act).

Let’s think about education. Where I grew up some the wealthier schools on the edge of Milwaukee had portable Dell laptop stations for certain exercises; one laptop for each student. My high school had an art gallery and another school in my conference built their own ice rink for their hockey team rather than renting time (or getting it donating) at a public facility.

Ten miles down the road in central Milwaukee you have some of the worst educational conditions in the country and one of the lowest graduation rates for minority males. I think most of us would agree that personal laptops, art galleries and ice rinks are not a necessity for quality education. Even moderate wealth distribution would go a long way in evening the playing field between Milwaukee's suburbs and the central city. But imagine the response if we told upper middle class suburbanites that their kids weren’t going to get a laptop because some inner city minorities needed new books, or another teacher. That is what I mean when I say this society won't let the government adequately address social problems.

[pdham]

Unfortunately, those that have less like to equate those of us that are successful after a lifetime of working hard and doing without with those few that have had it handed to them.

I am not sure how my statement brought on that comment, but my response is it doesn't really matter how you got your money, I still think those that have are in some way responsible for addressing the plight of those that have not. To me it seems like the humane thing to do. And I am not talking about free handouts, I am talking about structured aids and assistances to eliminate the problems of economic injustices not just cover them up. If that means wealth transfer then so be it.


I still don't believe any problems are solved by wealth transfer. The government is there to provide a framework and infrastructure to allow people to achieve and they can encourage people to succeed by using carrots rather than sticks.

Because the current system is working so well....

[leekohler]

I still don't believe any problems are solved by wealth transfer.

So all the money should stay in the hands of a few? I assume you're most likely against the estate tax, which is designed to stop an American aristocracy. If it were repealed it would make it very difficult for people like you and I to succeed in the future.

[MacNut]

All the people high up in government are rich, Republican and Democrat. They don't care about the little guy no matter how much they say they do. As long as they keep their millions and don't have to share what do they care about how everyone else suffers.

[MacNut]

So all the money should stay in the hands of a few? I assume you're most likely against the estate tax, which is designed to stop an American aristocracy. If it were repealed it would make it very difficult for people like you and I to succeed in the future.The estate tax does nothing to help the little guy who is trying to pass a house down if they can barely afford it now.

[leekohler]

The estate tax does nothing to help the little guy who is trying to pass a house down if they can barely afford it now.

Huh? Can you rephrase that? And please give more details if you're trying to say what I think you are.

[MacNut]

Huh? Can you rephrase that? And please give more details if you're trying to say what I think you are.Lets say a house is in a family for years. After the person dies the next of kin has to pay the estate tax. Now lets say that taxes in general are sky high. Adding the extra tax means most people are not able to hold on to that house.

Taxes are getting so bad that families that have had property for years are not able to hold on to it because the taxes are forcing people to sell. A lot of generations are losing out because as the rates sky rocket the average person can not keep up with the rising bills.

[leekohler]

Lets say a house is in a family for years. After the person dies the next of kin has to pay the estate tax. Now lets say that taxes in general are sky high. Adding the extra tax means most people are not able to hold on to that house.

Taxes are getting so bad that families that have had property for years are not able to hold on to it because the taxes are forcing people to sell. A lot of generations are losing out because as the rates sky rocket the average person can not keep up with the rising bills.

I know that property taxes are ridiculous-I live in Chicago, but can you show me a link about your claims about the estate tax? And believe me, I'm no fan of taxes in general, but some are there for good reasons. If the estate tax is pricing a majority of people out of inherited property, I'd like to see some figures. That would indicate tax inequity, which would need to be addressed. That doesn't mean the estate tax should be done away with entirely.

[zimv20]

Lets say a house is in a family for years. After the person dies the next of kin has to pay the estate tax. Now lets say that taxes in general are sky high.
and in 2007, the taxes for a house worth $2 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_tax) would be: zero.

[Swarmlord]

and in 2007, the taxes for a house worth $2 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_tax) would be: zero.

That's for an entire estate. I doubt anyone with a 2M house is going to have nothing else to go with it. Notice that the rate drops back down to $1M in 2011 and you might want to note the rate of taxation.

Note that the tax is on the estate on assets that were already taxed during the person's lifetime. His or her dead suddenly converts it to income.

[leekohler]

That's for an entire estate. I doubt anyone with a 2M house is going to have nothing else to go with it. Notice that the rate drops back down to $1M in 2011 and you might want to note the rate of taxation.

Note that the tax is on the estate on assets that were already taxed during the person's lifetime. His or her dead suddenly converts it to income.

How is it NOT income when the property/asset changes hands? Obviously it is income to the person receiving the inheritance, is it not?

[Swarmlord]

How is it NOT income when the property/asset changes hands? Obviously it is income to the person receiving the inheritance, is it not?

Not if it's the family house or farm. It's ridiculous anyway because they make the entire estate of the dead person pay the tax rather than the individuals receiving the worth. Using your argument, if the estate was distributed equally to the guy's five kids, then their "income" is only 400K a piece. What if some are minors? Is the house they are living in suddenly "income" to them? And then there's that goofy taxation percentage. Does 45-55% look like income tax rates to you?

I learned a long time ago about the way estate taxes worked and set up a trust and a corporation to minimize it. I don't own much of anything under my own name and therefore when I pass my kid and my surviving siblings just gain control of an entity that owns "stuff" and provides whatever dividend income they want to pay themselves.

You think I'm the only person that's figured out how to do this for himself? This whole estate tax debate is just there to placate the Paris Hilton haters and others that want to prevent trust fund babies while it only nails the mom and pop farms and small businesses that gradually creeped into the 1-2 Million net worth area that didn't think they had much saved because it wasn't cash in the bank.

[leekohler]

Not if it's the family house or farm. It's ridiculous anyway because they make the entire estate of the dead person pay the tax rather than the individuals receiving the worth. Using your argument, if the estate was distributed equally to the guy's five kids, then their "income" is only 400K a piece. What if some are minors? Is the house they are living in suddenly "income" to them? And then there's that goofy taxation percentage. Does 45-55&#37; look like income tax rates to you?

I learned a long time ago about the way estate taxes worked and set up a trust and a corporation to minimize it. I don't own much of anything under my own name and therefore when I pass my kid and my surviving siblings just gain control of an entity that owns "stuff" and provides whatever dividend income they want to pay themselves.

You think I'm the only person that's figured out how to do this for himself? This whole estate tax debate is just there to placate the Paris Hilton haters and others that want to prevent trust fund babies while it only nails the mom and pop farms and small businesses that gradually creeped into the 1-2 Million net worth area that didn't think they had much saved because it wasn't cash in the bank.

Maybe you shouldn't give away your secrets. Some wacky "Paris Hilton hater" like me might figure out a way to stop you. ;) Truly, we should- you've just pointed out that we need to find ways to do it as the original intention is being subverted. All you've convinced me of is that the tax system needs to be set up differently. BTW- I kind of like Paris Hilton. :)

[Swarmlord]

Maybe you shouldn't give away your secrets. Some wacky "Paris Hilton hater" like me might figure out a way to stop you. ;) Truly, we should- you've just pointed out that we need to find ways to do it as the original intention is being subverted. All you've convinced me of is that the tax system needs to be set up differently. BTW- I kind of like Paris Hilton. :)

We definitely agree that something needs to be done to make the tax system more fair. It surprises me that more isn't written on the various schemes used to minimize taxes for people that can control how they receive the "income" on their wealth.

[Desertrat]

pdham, if families don't push kids to learn in school; if there's no motivation to learn, all the money in the world wouldn't help. E.g., the student per capita $ in D.C. is the highest in the U.S., yet the physical infrastructure is shabby and the SATs are among the lowest.

More anecdotal stuff: One of the lowest $$$ per capita school districts in Texas, a smaller district somewhere in the area west of Wichita Falls, has commonly had the highest average SATs in the state.

And Texas went to a "Robin Hood" tax-money distribution system. It didn't help all that much.

All that redistribution of wealth does is drag down the creators of wealth, in return for a very short-term improvement of the have-nots. And it darned sure for certain creates tremendous ill-will from those who create wealth.

[leekohler]

pdham, if families don't push kids to learn in school; if there's no motivation to learn, all the money in the world wouldn't help. E.g., the student per capita $ in D.C. is the highest in the U.S., yet the physical infrastructure is shabby and the SATs are among the lowest.

More anecdotal stuff: One of the lowest $$$ per capita school districts in Texas, a smaller district somewhere in the area west of Wichita Falls, has commonly had the highest average SATs in the state.

And Texas went to a "Robin Hood" tax-money distribution system. It didn't help all that much.

All that redistribution of wealth does is drag down the creators of wealth, in return for a very short-term improvement of the have-nots. And it darned sure for certain creates tremendous ill-will from those who create wealth.

Then I think the answer is that the system need to be changed, not done away with. Or are you saying that only those who can pay for education should get it? I'm confused about what you are trying to say here.

[Desertrat]

leekohler, the Devil will be selling ice cubes before the laws for trusts set up to avoid taxes ever get changed. You're talking about over the dead bodies of the Kennedys, the Boxers and the Feinsteins, as well as all those nasty old Republican folks. :D

But the whole estate tax deal is a giant pick-pocket thing on those who either create wealth or who are made on-paper wealthy by inflation.

Example: You're happy, out at the edge of town with your auto junkyard. Land prices climb. Your 20 acres becomes worth two million bucks, plus the value of any buildings and the value of the car parts. You die, and your kid has to pay greenback cash. So, no choice but to sell.

I note that in 1984, the city's appraised value of the lot for my house in Austin, Texas, was $84,000 for a 70'x120' chunk of dirt. That's around a half-million per acre. My junkyard value, above, is quite reasonable.

Same sort of deal for a west Texas rancher. A 25,000-acre ranch will run right at 1,000 head. That's equivalent to around 2,000 acres in east Texas or in Florida. A good, upper-middle class income, after expenses. Back when such land would appraise at $50 to $100 an acre, no big tax problem. Nowadays, however, that land for estate tax purposes will be well north of $1,000 an acre. That's over $25 million, plus house/barns/fences/cattle. And the feds was greenback cash dollars. No choice but to sell.

The ownership commonly transfers to some rich guy's trust, for a hobby ranch. If it's midwest farmland, some outfit like ADM buys it and gets their gasahol tax breaks.

What the heck. It's just part of the decline of the middle class; who cares? (That's sarcasm.)

'Rat

[leekohler]

leekohler, the Devil will be selling ice cubes before the laws for trusts set up to avoid taxes ever get changed. You're talking about over the dead bodies of the Kennedys, the Boxers and the Feinsteins, as well as all those nasty old Republican folks. :D

But the whole estate tax deal is a giant pick-pocket thing on those who either create wealth or who are made on-paper wealthy by inflation.

Example: You're happy, out at the edge of town with your auto junkyard. Land prices climb. Your 20 acres becomes worth two million bucks, plus the value of any buildings and the value of the car parts. You die, and your kid has to pay greenback cash. So, no choice but to sell.

I note that in 1984, the city's appraised value of the lot for my house in Austin, Texas, was $84,000 for a 70'x120' chunk of dirt. That's around a half-million per acre. My junkyard value, above, is quite reasonable.

Same sort of deal for a west Texas rancher. A 25,000-acre ranch will run right at 1,000 head. That's equivalent to around 2,000 acres in east Texas or in Florida. A good, upper-middle class income, after expenses. Back when such land would appraise at $50 to $100 an acre, no big tax problem. Nowadays, however, that land for estate tax purposes will be well north of $1,000 an acre. That's over $25 million, plus house/barns/fences/cattle. And the feds was greenback cash dollars. No choice but to sell.

The ownership commonly transfers to some rich guy's trust, for a hobby ranch. If it's midwest farmland, some outfit like ADM buys it and gets their gasahol tax breaks.

What the heck. It's just part of the decline of the middle class; who cares? (That's sarcasm.)

'Rat

Ah- so we shouldn't try to change the system then? Simply learn how to avoid paying what we probably should and simply subvert the original intentions? I'm sorry, you can do that if you like, but I'm not going to sit back and just say "oh well". I don't see why we should accept such things.

[pseudobrit]

I'm talking exactly about direct intervention, which is strongly contributary to the worsening of many facets of our daily lives.

As for things like credit-card interest, that's 1) self-regulating by greed and competition (greed, in that by dropping a point or two, a greater total volume of business accrues) and 2) by the self-healing process of the foolish user going broke. It is not government's business to protect people from themselves

No, but when the government provides protection from predatory lending and irresponsible employers who will risk their lives for them, I see that as a positive social solution.

Just because someone's weak, poor and stupid doesn't mean anyone can feed on them. That's inhuman.

[pseudobrit]

Not if it's the family house or farm.

Right. In which case it's exempt. Unless it's worth an assload of money. In which case you're no longer talking about an average "family farm."

Besides, when I'm dead I don't think I'll give a **** what happens to my money.
If I'd cared at all, I'd do something while still on the right side of the grass.

http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

[miloblithe]

The ownership commonly transfers to some rich guy's trust, for a hobby ranch. If it's midwest farmland, some outfit like ADM buys it and gets their gasahol tax breaks.

Do you think life in America would be better if 90% of us were still farmers?

[solvs]

1. Government can't solve social problems.

2. Efforts to do so mostly exacerbate them.

Mostly by people who think the gov can't solve problems and doing so would only exacerbate them. Tell FDR that. I'm not saying we should just throw money at the problem, that doesn't help. Bureaucracy and waste are obviously bad things. But there has to be some thing in between that and drowning the whole gov in the bathtub. Especially when social programs that are actually working, some of which that are desperately needed, continue to be cut or made worse while the deficit continues to skyrocket.

I'm not advocating more waste and bureaucracy, we already have that, which is why most of these programs don't work. Ie NCLB. If we had programs that actually worked, and helped to fix the ones that don't instead of just eliminating them outright, maybe we wouldn't be complaining about our taxes as much.

Well, some of us still would because we're pretty selfish, but at least they would actually be going to something like they seem to do in other countries.

[Desertrat]

"Ah- so we shouldn't try to change the system then? Simply learn how to avoid paying what we probably should and simply subvert the original intentions?"

What "original intentions"? Trusts and the use of them as protection against undue taxation have been around as long as income tax. It's all part of the original intentions. Hey, it's in the IRS booklet, roughly: "Pay no more than you have to. Take all the deductions you're allowed." The deal is that you learn the rules of the game and play by them. All nations' systems have rules, backed up by brute force and the threat of the gun.
________

"Predatory lending", pseudobrit? That's a made-up null-phrase with no meaning. A lender only "cheat" on a loan when the borrower thinks he can get something for below-market pricing--or not have to pay it back. I note that people have been bughouse-happy to borrow via an ARM, and now they are finding out that their greed for more house than they could truly afford is biting them in the butt.

If you're talking credit cards, well, folks who maxed out several cards were doing so because they thought they could get away with living high off the hog that they didn't really have. Ignore the future at your peril is as ttrue now as it has been throughout history.
__________

solvs, I'm in full accord with "I'm not advocating more waste and bureaucracy, we already have that, which is why most of these programs don't work. Ie NCLB. If we had programs that actually worked, and helped to fix the ones that don't instead of just eliminating them outright, maybe we wouldn't be complaining about our taxes as much."

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his rump every time he jumps. The history of the whole government intervention deal is predominantly programs that don't work or that have unintended consequences that are harmful. NCLB is an example of adding another non-working program onto a host of programs that don't work.

Sorry, but I cannot judge a program by its intent. Only by its results. Hell's bells, I don't object to the INTENT of any of these programs. But what good is intent when after a relatively short time it's obvious that it doesn't work? I'm fed up with the unending refrain of, "We need more money!"

One definition of insanity is repeating an experiment yet expecting different results.

Enuf. I'm gone beddy-bye. Even an Olde Phart needs to catch some ZZZs.

:), 'Rat

[spork183]

Do you think life in America would be better if 90% of us were still farmers?

umm, actually, probably yes. The crankhead down the street would be to busy trying to smoke corn silks to do any serious cooking...

Was there ever a time when 90% of us were farmers? Maybe 90% of middle america at one time.

[miloblithe]

umm, actually, probably yes. The crankhead down the street would be to busy trying to smoke corn silks to do any serious cooking...

Was there ever a time when 90&#37; of us were farmers? Maybe 90% of middle america at one time.

1790, apparently. And in the 1600s it was probably roughly 99%.

http://www.agclassroom.org/textversion/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

1790 90%
1840 69%
1850 64%
1860 58%
1870 53%
1880 49%
1890 43%
1900 38%
1910 31%
1920 27%
1930 21%
1940 18%
1950 12.2%
1960 8.3%
1970 4.6%
1980 3.4%
1990 2.6%

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

2006 0.7% (different source means quite likely different counting method.)

Lots of people have had to sell the farm.

[spork183]

1790, apparently. And in the 1600s it was probably roughly 99%.

http://www.agclassroom.org/textversion/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

1790 90%
1840 69%
1850 64%
1860 58%
1870 53%
1880 49%
1890 43%
1900 38%
1910 31%
1920 27%
1930 21%
1940 18%
1950 12.2%
1960 8.3%
1970 4.6%
1980 3.4%
1990 2.6%

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

2006 0.7% (different source means quite likely different counting method.)

Lots of people have had to sell the farm.

See, that's how numbers get misinterpreted. That 1790 figure is so high because the 40% of farms that were actually distilleries couldn't be honest about it.

Seriously though, going back to a small farm model would be great unless you were one of small farmers...

[miloblithe]

Well, I am misrepresenting the data. That's true. I'm equating "agricultural worker" = "farmer", which obviously isn't literally true.

[solvs]

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his rump every time he jumps. The history of the whole government intervention deal is predominantly programs that don't work or that have unintended consequences that are harmful. NCLB is an example of adding another non-working program onto a host of programs that don't work.

Equating that failure of a program, run by one of those "drown the gov in the bathtub" types BTW (with some other obvious exceptions, most of which also don't work or spit all over the Constitution, which makes me wonder) to programs that do work if properly funded and manned doesn't make sense. You can't just say none of it works. Of course some of it works. A lot more that could work if we stop screwing them up.

I don't understand how someone can look at only the failures and mistakes, and ignore any positives, using it as an excuse to just get rid of all gov instead of just the pork.

[leekohler]

"Ah- so we shouldn't try to change the system then? Simply learn how to avoid paying what we probably should and simply subvert the original intentions?"

What "original intentions"? Trusts and the use of them as protection against undue taxation have been around as long as income tax. It's all part of the original intentions. Hey, it's in the IRS booklet, roughly: "Pay no more than you have to. Take all the deductions you're allowed." The deal is that you learn the rules of the game and play by them. All nations' systems have rules, backed up by brute force and the threat of the gun.

The original intentions of the estate tax were to prevent an American aristocracy. You have indicated that it's not working, so I am advocating we make changes in the tax code to change that.
________

"Predatory lending", pseudobrit? That's a made-up null-phrase with no meaning. A lender only "cheat" on a loan when the borrower thinks he can get something for below-market pricing--or not have to pay it back. I note that people have been bughouse-happy to borrow via an ARM, and now they are finding out that their greed for more house than they could truly afford is biting them in the butt.

Predatory lending is more than just that. It's also the attempt to convince people they can afford more than they can. A lot of people don't understand finance and are merely trying to just get a piece of the pie. For example, a friend of mine recently was told she'd have to leave her apartment because it was going condo. Those same people told her, hey! You can stay, we'll give you this great loan, it's affordable too! Not knowing what she was getting into, she's now screwed. They took advantage of her naivete, plain and simple, and all she wanted was to stay in the same place. And trust me, the place was no palace- it was a one bedroom apartment for god's sake. There have been many pushes here in Chicago for people to own- a lot of people were to told to get ARMs and they'd be fine. They were taken advantage of and lied to and now we have a lot of foreclosures happening. We're talking small places man, not huge three story townhouses.

Even worse, some people I knew, who were struggling to pay their rent went to a payday advance loan office. The interest rates were insane but they had the choice of taking the loan or getting evicted. So they ended up getting seriously screwed. There is no reason to run a business like that with crazy interest rates! Thank god we have legislation pending against these payday loan offices. "Predatory lending" is NOT a made up phrase, if you want to see some examples, come on up to Chicago, I'll show you some.

If you're talking credit cards, well, folks who maxed out several cards were doing so because they thought they could get away with living high off the hog that they didn't really have. Ignore the future at your peril is as ttrue now as it has been throughout history.

You're right. But why do credit card companies still send out pre-approved applications for platinum cards to people who probably can't afford them? I get one every day because my credit rating is good, but there's no way in hell I could afford to pay off a $10,000 credit card. Why are there no laws against that?
__________

[Desertrat]

". A lot of people don't understand finance and are merely trying to just get a piece of the pie."

Yeah, which ties in with one of my gripes about what's NOT taught in our schools. That was true even in my day, back around WW II and just after. There oughta be a full high-school year of a class on "How the real world works." Check books, credit cards, home loans, compound interest, return on investment, taxation...

Anyhow, as an example of one of my gripes: AFDC is a good thing, right? But Mama is ineligible if there is a man in the house. So, the kids don't have any male role model. We have generations of single-parent families, mothers only, and thus the resulting social problems. Unintended side-effect of trying to do good. (And, no, I don't have any ready answer.)

Now, I don't think anybody's against some sort of welfare for folks down on their luck. A problem is that if they find any sort of work, there is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in benefits. The trouble with that is, the earned money is subject to taxes. So, for somebody just starting out, if they try to find work, they're gonna lose money.

I talked with a Congressman about this, following some learning about it. I suggested some sort of percentage deal. You earn a dollar, you lose only fifty cents. He commented that he'd introduced such legislation several times, to no avail. What startled me was that the opposition had come from the "welfare" bureaucracy. The unstated *real* reason was that if people could reasonably easily work their way off the dole, the bureacrats would lose jobs.

Damfino.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

I talked with a Congressman about this, following some learning about it. I suggested some sort of percentage deal. You earn a dollar, you lose only fifty cents. He commented that he'd introduced such legislation several times, to no avail. What startled me was that the opposition had come from the "welfare" bureaucracy.

It's sad that welfare recipients didn't have the lobbying access the bureaucrats did. You want to know why people are stuck on the dole and it's obviously because only a fool would bust his ass for $300 when the government would gladly continue to pay him the exact same amount for sitting on his ass.

Now we've got this welfare to work nonsense that is making single-parent households zero-parent households and we're wondering why things are still going to hell.

[Mord]

Father was floor covering installer and piano tuner. Stay at home mother. That's what they wanted to become and they didn't whine about it or compare their lot in life with someone else.

I guess if you ran the numbers we were poor, but we didn't think we were any different than anyone else. We cut a lot of wood and canned a lot of fruit and vegetables to get through the year, that's for sure.

Maybe now you can understand why I don't have a lot of compassion for young adults who's only skill is to operate a TV remote and figure out whether the zipper in their pants is in the front of the back.

My mother was in and out of hospidal since I was 4 or so for 6 years until she died, my father was made unemployed a few months before she became terminally ill and my extended family cut all contact to us because of inheritance infighting which my father my sister nor I wanted any part of, we also had to move as the council decided to demolish our house which we were renting from my fathers employer at the time for health and safety reasons, my father is the type who prepares for the worst and hopes for the best but all this wiped out his savings for a rainy day and god did it pour.

Now, according to your view of how the world should work we should have all been totally screwed and would have fallen into spiraling debt. As it happened all my mothers healthcare was on the NHS (she would not have been able to get insurence either privately or through my fathers work), my father got the welfare support he needed and a year and a half after my mother died he turned the books back out of the red every month and now he's doing fairly well for himself and he supported my sister through university and he's trying his hardest to support me through my degree even if it is a bit tight.

He's not perfect and I have my gripes with him but he's still done allot for my sister and I.

How selfish and short minded are you to think that people don't deserve a bit of a safety net for when the **** hits than fan? I find your train of thought despicable and insulting.

[janey]

pdham, if families don't push kids to learn in school; if there's no motivation to learn, all the money in the world wouldn't help. E.g., the student per capita $ in D.C. is the highest in the U.S., yet the physical infrastructure is shabby and the SATs are among the lowest.

More anecdotal stuff: One of the lowest $$$ per capita school districts in Texas, a smaller district somewhere in the area west of Wichita Falls, has commonly had the highest average SATs in the state.
I'm not sure what to think of this.

The idea is that you're comparing a big city in the US to a small one in the middle of nowhere with a test that is not used for college admissions evenly nationwide. There is more pressure on people to take a test like the SAT to go to college in a place like DC because universities in that area would most commonly accept SAT scores. And really, it's just abnormal when you see someone in a city like that not take the SAT - basically a lot of people in a place like LA applying to any college or university takes the SAT, and a tiny portion of that would take the ACT for various somewhat unusual reasons. On the other hand, maybe only the top 10&#37; of a class in the middle of nowhere would actually benefit from taking the SAT - the people with the grades to get into one of the non-local universities that would prefer the SAT over the ACT. If you're talking somewhere in Texas, the ACT would be more widely used. On the flip side, universities in the northern east coast and on the west coast would prefer the SAT. So if you were a student in an obscure Texas school district who wanted to go to the likes of Stanford...you get the idea. Scores would be higher only because the students who are taking it would be the ones most likely getting high scores compared to like 60% of an urban high school student population's average SAT scores that you'd probably get out of a place like DC.

By making such a comparison you only get dangerous and highly skewed results. You're not the only one who's gone down that path thinking that SAT scores don't have much to do with money spent per pupil. It's really not the case.

[Swarmlord]

How selfish and short minded are you to think that people don't deserve a bit of a safety net for when the **** hits than fan? I find your train of thought despicable and insulting.

I never said we shouldn't have a safety net. The trouble is when our government puts it into practice it's more like a hammock.

[Mord]

I never said we shouldn't have a safety net. The trouble is when our government puts it into practice it's more like a hammock.


Yeah, 'cause barely getting by under the poverty living on just enough benefits to not starve is fun :rolleyes:.

[Swarmlord]

Yeah, 'cause barely getting by under the poverty living on just enough benefits to not starve is fun :rolleyes:.

In America, you'd have to work hard to starve. Wanna bet I could go right now and pick up a week's worth of groceries with no id right now? I bet I wouldn't even have to fabricate a sob story either.

You'd have to hire help just to keep track of all the sources of aid if you are truly in need here. I've seen two families with my own eyes make a full time job out of collecting food from churches and charities to supplement the government provided benefits.

[leekohler]

I've seen two families with my own eyes make a full time job out of collecting food from churches and charities to supplement the government provided benefits.

That sounds like a blast! :rolleyes: BTW- I actually had to apply for assistance once in college and was denied because the job I was laid off from didn't pay enough per week. That was unbelievable to me. They looked me in the eye and said, "How were you living on that? Sorry, we can't help you". But you know what? I was living on it. So I had to rely in food banks and the generosity of friends. Those days were fun! :rolleyes: :D

[zimv20]

BTW- I actually had to apply for assistance once in college and was denied because the job I was laid off from didn't pay enough per week. That was unbelievable to me. They looked me in the eye and said, "How were you living on that? Sorry, we can't help you".
i was denied aid in college (this was after reagan changed the qualifying rules) when the financial aid advisor, referring to my mother -- unmarried, with 2 kids in college, making less than $17k a year -- said my mom was "hiding money from me."

because of the changed rules, i didn't even qualify for a student loan. the priorities in this country are ridiculous.

[leekohler]

i was denied aid in college (this was after reagan changed the qualifying rules) when the financial aid advisor, referring to my mother -- unmarried, with 2 kids in college, making less than $17k a year -- said my mom was "hiding money from me."

because of the changed rules, i didn't even qualify for a student loan. the priorities in this country are ridiculous.

Actually I was talking about food stamps. ;) But yeah, I see what you mean. I was on my own, so student loans were no problem, but living expenses definitely were. So I had money for school, but I had a seriously hard time just putting food in my mouth. My rent was always very late too- many times it was a few months behind.

[obeygiant]

i was denied aid in college (this was after reagan changed the qualifying rules) when the financial aid advisor, referring to my mother -- unmarried, with 2 kids in college, making less than $17k a year -- said my mom was "hiding money from me."

because of the changed rules, i didn't even qualify for a student loan. the priorities in this country are ridiculous.

So did you actually end up going to college or what?

[carbonmotion]

I think the country need to give substantial financial aid packages on a need basis to undergraduates and more importantly science related graduate students. the US needs more chemists, engineers, researchers.... a healthy amount of science people is crucial to maintaining this country's tech edge.

[MacNut]

The problem is when you have people that can't support themselves to begin with decide to have 3 kids. They know they can't live off of what they have now but they think if we have a few kids the government will be forced to support us.

[miloblithe]

I think the country need to give substantial financial aid packages on a need basis to undergraduates and more importantly science related graduate students. the US needs more chemists, engineers, researchers.... a healthy amount of science people is crucial to maintaining this country's tech edge.

I think a healthy amount of liberal arts funding would help us have a more generally educated population that might be able to avoid making poor decisions. The average American is woefully poor at critical thinking.

[zimv20]

I think a healthy amount of liberal arts funding would help us have a more generally educated population that might be able to avoid making poor decisions. The average American is woefully poor at critical thinking.
i think we need to boost funding for sports. so that spectators all over america can indulge themselves in contests with clear sides and outcomes.

[miloblithe]

i think we need to boost funding for sports. so that spectators all over america can indulge themselves in contests with clear sides and outcomes.

(overdramatically declining intonation.) No you don't. :)

[Ugg]

The problem is when you have people that can't support themselves to begin with decide to have 3 kids. They know they can't live off of what they have now but they think if we have a few kids the government will be forced to support us.


Do you have any examples? I think you're mostly blowing smoke, but, who knows?

I think a lot of those people grew up in a day and age where decent paying jobs were common. Now, with corporate america exporting jobs overseas, those with little or no education have a hard time making ends meet. Couple that with bushco's family unfriendly family planning funding, it's amazing there aren't more out there.

I think we also need to examine the massive rise in birth rates amongst the right wing christians. That scares me to death. Those who are having a half dozen kids are big users of government services. It's not the person who makes the occasional mistake that bothers me, rather those out there who feel it is a right bestowed upon them by god and his proxy, gw, to go forth and multiply at any cost.

[Mord]

In America, you'd have to work hard to starve. Wanna bet I could go right now and pick up a week's worth of groceries with no id right now? I bet I wouldn't even have to fabricate a sob story either.

You'd have to hire help just to keep track of all the sources of aid if you are truly in need here. I've seen two families with my own eyes make a full time job out of collecting food from churches and charities to supplement the government provided benefits.


Oh noes.

Some people will always take advantage of systems and they're jerks for doing so, it doesn't change the fact that those systems need to be in place.

[MacNut]

Do you have any examples? I think you're mostly blowing smoke, but, who knows?So you are saying that these people don't exist, single mother with 3 kids no job can't find the father of the kid but says, don't worry Ill get a welfare check, and she's pregnant.

[pdham]

In America, you'd have to work hard to starve. Wanna bet I could go right now and pick up a week's worth of groceries with no id right now? I bet I wouldn't even have to fabricate a sob story either.

You'd have to hire help just to keep track of all the sources of aid if you are truly in need here. I've seen two families with my own eyes make a full time job out of collecting food from churches and charities to supplement the government provided benefits.

Swarmlord, I really recomend you read Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. It is an undercover journalism piece on people working two or three jobs to try to make ends meet and the often deplorable living conditions they have to endure becuase none of their jobs pay more than 6 or 7 dollars and hour (if they are lucky). Just because you work, and often these people work REALLY hard, doesnt mean you are going to be able to pull yourself out of poverty.

Really a good read.

[pdham]

So you are saying that these people don't exist, single mother with 3 kids no job can't find the father of the kid but says, don't worry Ill get a welfare check, and she's pregnant.

Yes they exist, no they are not the majority.
And the generalization is irrelevant given the real problems of pverty and public assistance,

[it5five]

Swarmlord, I really recomend you read Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. It is an undercover journalism piece on people working two or three jobs to try to make ends meet and the often deplorable living conditions they have to endure becuase none of their jobs pay more than 6 or 7 dollars and hour (if they are lucky). Just because you work, and often these people work REALLY hard, doesnt mean you are going to be able to pull yourself out of poverty.

Really a good read.

Great book. But good luck trying to get a militant libertarian to read it. I've tried before, and was met with "that book clearly has a bias" remarks.

Really though Swarmlord, you should read it. Go check it out from the library if you don't want to buy it.

[solvs]

The problem is when you have people that can't support themselves to begin with decide to have 3 kids. They know they can't live off of what they have now but they think if we have a few kids the government will be forced to support us.

That's not how it works at all. If you actually knew anything about the system, you'd know how wrong you were. My Mother used to be a case worker before becoming a teacher BTW. Sure there are some who use the system, but it's ever harder nowadays on the pittance they give you, the limits to how many and how long, and the work you have to do to even qualify, that it's actually making it harder for the people who really need it.

I think a lot of people need to do some reading on the subject, because they are woefully unaware of even the basics of welfare benefits.

[Desertrat]

Does anybody ever stop to wonder just a bit at how people made it through life before all these "social programs"?

Forget anything pre-Korean War years. Move on up to just before LBJ; that's only forty years back.

I was making $535 a month. Wife and kid. I put my wife back into college so she could finish her BFA. Kid in a day nursery. Tuition was quite affordable at UT Austin. Rent $80; utilities $24. $60/mo for a good used Beetle. 3&#37; Texas sales tax. And Goodwill was a Friend Indeed, for my kid's clothes when he was little.

"Times have changed, 'Rat!" Aw, I never noticed. But does anybody ever wonder why?

The government has debased the currency. People have demanded that Big Nanny provide services, so taxes at every level are higher'n a cat's back. Remember, local property taxes affect rent, even for the usual rather-tired student housing. Now we have folks thinking that Big Nanny is supposed to provide. Guess what? Big Nanny can't. "They" don't have the money. Get used to it, 'cause it's gonna get worse.

So the illegals come here. Why? A better life, "...taking jobs Americans won't do." Hey, there's some reason Americans won't take those jobs. Me, I'd bet they think they're somehow better off as they are, and wouldn't be better off "taking those jobs". I notice that it's ignored that most of those from the south are escaping the benefits of socialism.

Obama went to Selma, honoring those days, those efforts. The ghost of MLK was certiainly part of the thoughts, I'd bet. But MLK's views in one arena have been ignored, and I've seen it in posts here over these last few years. He called upon folks to stand on your own hind legs. Take charge of your own destiny. Be responsible for yiour own lives. Don't look to others for your own well-being. I note those are easily forgotten in the pursuit of instant gratification...

there's always that bottom end of the bell curve for whom the assistance of all of us is needed. It can be the IQ curve, the ambition curve, the common sense curve or the luck curve. Pick one. But outside of that it's real easy to find the 90% cause of failure and poverty:

Look in the mirror.

'Rat

[miloblithe]

I was making $535 a month. Wife and kid. I put my wife back into college so she could finish her BFA. Kid in a day nursery. Tuition was quite affordable at UT Austin. Rent $80; utilities $24. $60/mo for a good used Beetle. 3% Texas sales tax. And Goodwill was a Friend Indeed, for my kid's clothes when he was little.

1966? So you were making $34,445 a year in current dollars, in Austin?

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp#results

Someone making minimum wage in Austin today would make, working 2080 hours a year, $10,712.

[leekohler]

1966? So you were making $34,445 a year in current dollars, in Austin?

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp#results

Someone making minimum wage in Austin today would make, working 2080 hours a year, $10,712.

34,445? Rat, you were doing OK back then. I have friends who live on that and so just fine now. Let's see- $535 a month with $164 in expenses including utilities? That was a little more than a quarter of your monthly income. That's pretty awesome. I spend more than a quarter on just rent, once you include utilities it's closer to half. And I thought I was doing OK. Things obviously have changed. I mean, my heating bill alone was $220 last month, and that was keeping it at about 68&#176; or lower.

[MacNut]

Wasn't the idea that technology would make things cheaper and easier, As technology gets better and faster I don't see prices going down any.

[solvs]

Does anybody ever stop to wonder just a bit at how people made it through life before all these "social programs"?

Didn't FDR start these "social programs" with the New Deal? If I know my history, before the New Deal, things weren't so good for the average worker. Let alone the below average. Not sure what your point is with the rest. Taxes are too high and the gov takes too good care of us!?! Like with Katrina, or the homeless crazy people wandering the streets instead of in hospitals getting treatment, or people becoming bankrupt (though even that's harder nowadays) due to hospital bills from the modern medicine that's keeping us alive twice as long (except for the elderly, they have a broken Medicare system, but thanks to those hippies demanding healthcare, at least they have it, unlike an unbelievably large amount of us younger working folks)? Or our broken transit system, our broken school system, our loosened environmental policies? Or the companies who hire illegals, who either aren't punished or are and go right back to doing it?

I'm sure I'm forgetting others, and I appreciate what little we do get, but I don't think the gov is exactly a nanny state. Maybe when they try to legislate morality, or when the make everything a bureaucratic mess, than claim gov doesn't work while lowering taxes for rich people and still raising the deficit higher than it's even been. But I wouldn't mind paying taxes, even higher ones, if they actually went to something worthwhile.

Regarding welfare, I refer back to my previous comment about looking up what you actually get and what you have to do to get it, if you even qualify.

[solvs]

Wasn't the idea that technology would make things cheaper and easier, As technology gets better and faster I don't see prices going down any.

Some of it is. Look at computers. Or any electronics for that matter. Or most of the goods you'd get at places like Wal-Mart. But since wages haven't been going up much, if at all, while executives are making more than ever, perhaps you should ask them.

[miloblithe]

Some of it is. Look at computers. Or any electronics for that matter. Or most of the goods you'd get at places like Wal-Mart. But since wages haven't been going up much, if at all, while executives are making more than ever, perhaps you should ask them.

Definitely.

In 1991, Apple introduced the Powerbook. Look at these two models:

100: 16Mhz 68000, 2MB RAM, 20MB HD, Passive Matrix, $2500

170: 25Mhz '030, 2MB RAM, 40MB HD, internal superdrive, Active Matrix, $4600

Meanwhile, for desktops:

Classic 2: 16 Mhz 030, 9" screen, 40MB HD, superdrive, $1900

Quadra 900: 25Mhz '040, 80MB HD, superdrive, 2x CD ROM, etc., $7200.

[Swarmlord]

Definitely.

In 1991, Apple introduced the Powerbook. Look at these two models:

100: 16Mhz 68000, 2MB RAM, 20MB HD, Passive Matrix, $2500

170: 25Mhz '030, 2MB RAM, 40MB HD, internal superdrive, Active Matrix, $4600

Meanwhile, for desktops:

Classic 2: 16 Mhz 030, 9" screen, 40MB HD, superdrive, $1900

Quadra 900: 25Mhz '040, 80MB HD, superdrive, 2x CD ROM, etc., $7200.

Don't forget the Lisa which if I remember correctly was nearly $10K.

We've definitely been getting more for our money in computers over the years.

[mactastic]

Does anybody ever stop to wonder just a bit at how people made it through life before all these "social programs"?
Yeah, the same way people used to make it through cancer before treatments were developed: not so well.

[mactastic]

solvs, from watching these last 40-some years, two things:

1. Government can't solve social problems.

2. Efforts to do so mostly exacerbate them.

Now, obviously a lot of people disagree with #1. Tough. #1 has been proven by #2. That's just history, not any sort of me saying it makes it so. All ya gotta do is have read the numerous media articles and learned studies, these last few decades. Every problem we've had when LBJ first got going has gotten worse over time--as we've spent ever-larger amounts of tax-money.

It doesn't matter what is my opinion or what I think about it all. It's what I'm forced to conclude from what I've seen. I've said numerous times that I have no politically-viable answer...

'Rat
When you spend "anti-drug" money buying the cops shiny new equipment and building more jails to hold the incarcerated, it's a "duh" kind of reasoning that tells you that you're not going to see progress in the "War on Drugs". When you create situations where the minimum wage pays about the same as the welfare, it's a "duh" kind of reasoning that tells you that you're not going to see progress in the "War on Poverty". And so on and so forth.

The problem isn't that government can't solve social problems, it's that we go about it in the stupidest way possible. That's not me just saying so, that's history. (Hey, it works for you, right?)

[Desertrat]

"The problem isn't that government can't solve social problems, it's that we go about it in the stupidest way possible."

I'd say it's both.

I think government can set up programs to help people help themselves; some of that has been done. The early days of Job Corps is a for-instance.

I think a good example of governmental "dumbest way possible" is typified by the New Orleans school bus debacle. It illustrates the mindset of bureaucracy in inaction. Rules without reason.

'Rat

[Swarmlord]

When you spend "anti-drug" money buying the cops shiny new equipment and building more jails to hold the incarcerated, it's a "duh" kind of reasoning that tells you that you're not going to see progress in the "War on Drugs". <snip>

I wonder how much "enforcement" would take place if all the funding went to treatment facilities and doctors rather than jails and prison wardens. They really want to help these people that are addicted to drugs, right? :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

I wonder how much "enforcement" would take place if all the funding went to treatment facilities and doctors rather than jails and prison wardens. They really want to help these people that are addicted to drugs, right? :rolleyes:
Did I advocate that all money go to treatment? :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

I wonder how much "enforcement" would take place if all the funding went to treatment facilities and doctors rather than jails and prison wardens. They really want to help these people that are addicted to drugs, right? :rolleyes:

Are you saying that jail is the only way to "cure" the drug problem?

[Desertrat]

If we went on and admitted that the War On Some Drugs was lost about the time Nixon named it, we'd be way ahead. We'd be a couple of hundred billion dollars to the good if we first legalized everything and then only spent money on dealing with the effects.

Lots of unemployment would result, though. Pity the badge-toters, the lawyers, the prison guards.

Free up a lot of courts, though, probably reducing the workload by 50&#37;.

A free market in Evil Drugs would probably mean around $75 billion less money going to foreign countries' drug lords' networks. That's a fair amount of consumer spending that would stay home.

The $90 billion or more that's tax-dollars spent in the WOSD could have a lot left over even AFTER various programs to help folks off drugs, if they wanted off a habit.

But we already know all that...

It ain't really a war on drugs. It's a war on the Bill of Rights.

:), 'Rat

[Swarmlord]

Are you saying that jail is the only way to "cure" the drug problem?

Wow, far from it. I think that the level of enforcement that's going on has nothing to do with the desire to cure people of anything. I was being sarcastic about the motives of our leaders' arguments to justify the War on Drugs which I completely disagree with.

I just like to point out that if the intention is to "cure" people of their evil addictions that the money should go to doctors and hospitals, not cops and jails. If the budget were magically shifted in this way, you'd see law enforcement's "enthusiasm" for capturing and transporting to treatment facilities dry up so fast it would make your head spin.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
It ain't really a war on drugs. It's a war on the Bill of Rights.

:), 'Rat

A war on individual freedom and on Americans themselves. :mad:

[leekohler]

A war on individual freedom and on Americans themselves. :mad:

On very few things do we agree, but on this one we couldn't agree more.

[mactastic]

I just like to point out that if the intention is to "cure" people of their evil addictions that the money should go to doctors and hospitals, not cops and jails. If the budget were magically shifted in this way, you'd see law enforcement's "enthusiasm" for capturing and transporting to treatment facilities dry up so fast it would make your head spin.
Does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? Couldn't we shift money to the doctors and hospitals while still leaving enough in law enforcement's purse to keep the violent offenders locked up and protect kids etc.?

[MacNut]

Does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? Couldn't we shift money to the doctors and hospitals while still leaving enough in law enforcement's purse to keep the violent offenders locked up and protect kids etc.?Murders should be locked away. Not the kid smoking some weed. The war on drugs has been deemed worse then any other crime. I think they should treat drug addicts. Throwing them in jail and forgetting about them isn't helping anyone. By the time they get out they are hardened criminals and then they are likely to commit far worse crimes so the cycle continues.

[Ugg]

I just like to point out that if the intention is to "cure" people of their evil addictions that the money should go to doctors and hospitals, not cops and jails. If the budget were magically shifted in this way, you'd see law enforcement's "enthusiasm" for capturing and transporting to treatment facilities dry up so fast it would make your head spin.

If the treatment actually works, why would they lack enthusiasm? Your reasoning doesn't make sense.

[Swarmlord]

Does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? Couldn't we shift money to the doctors and hospitals while still leaving enough in law enforcement's purse to keep the violent offenders locked up and protect kids etc.?

Certainly not all-or-nothing. Definitely have to capture and retain violent offenders. The prisons are getting filled with drug war victims and certainly aren't benefittting from close quarters schooling by the worst of the worst either.

[mactastic]

Certainly not all-or-nothing. Definitely have to capture and retain violent offenders. The prisons are getting filled with drug war victims and certainly aren't benefittting from close quarters schooling by the worst of the worst either.

No disagreement there...