In reply to Appleseed:
Well, it made it to 11-12 pages before it turned into a poo sandwich. I'm out, too.
Sorry guys, perhaps I should have sent my last remarks off line. I promise to keep it constructive. This is still a good discussion worth having, don't let us ruin it.
In reply to SVreX:
That's one of the beauties I discovered when I learned what Habitat actually did.....they try to get the family involved in construction so they have a personal stake in it. That simple fact alone can make a world of difference, not always, but sometimes it does more than anything the government can ever cobble together.
In reply to SVreX:
Very well said. Thank you.
In reply to SVreX:
In reply to Boost_Crazy: How 'bout we reign this in a little, OK? And to everyone else, my apologies for contributing to the E36 M3fest. Here's the bottom line- it's about balance. There are a lot of things we agree on: There is a problem called poverty. Sometimes it is blown out of proportion for political or other gain. Some people make bad decisions, which magnifies the problem. Good decisions can make a big difference. OK, so that is the problem. I am less interested in the problem than the solution. I'm not hearing a lot of feedback from you about solutions, but I think it is somewhere between, "They made mistakes, now they should live with the consequences" and, "Pull up your bootstraps, move, fix it, and make better decisions- don't be a victim". I don't disagree with either of those things, but they are incomplete and out of balance as a solution. Here's another thing we agree on: The bleeding heart liberal solution of giving handouts fosters dependency, and contributes to the problem". That doesn't work, because it is an unbalanced, extreme solution. However, the opposite extreme is, "berkeley 'em. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it." It doesn't work either. "Handouts" don't work, but neither does "hands off". I have spent a lot of time with poor people in many places. I have seen many successes, as well as many failures. The truth is sometimes bad stuff happens and it is not always the fault of the individual, and people are not always able to help themselves without assistance. I have never seen someone raised in poverty fix themselves. Well, I've heard stories, but I haven't witnessed it. What works really well in most cases is giving a "hand up". Coming alongside people in need, getting a little dirty, understanding them, and encouraging and enabling them to take it to the next level, without fostering dependency. Example: Most people view Habitat for Humanity has an organization that builds houses for poor people. That's not true. Habitat makes low cost credit available to people who can not get credit in other ways. Their biggest function is as a LENDER, not a BUILDER. Then they work WITH them, to help them build THEIR home. FWIW, we also agree that government solutions are usually not a good idea.
I agree with everything said above. I think our disagreement lies with our personal expiriences. I admit that there is no "one size fits all" solution. I'm honestly surprised when you say that you have never seen anyone pull themselves out of poverty. I don't doubt you at all, but that definitly influences the discussion. I've seen many people pull themselves out of poverty. I'll concede that the vast majority of them were not at the level of poverty that you describe. In my experience, most who escaped poverty- and did not slide back into it- did it themselves. The more help they received, the more temporary the reprise.
Of course, where they live may be a large factor. Maybe for reasons that you alluded to. For some perspective, here is the latest census data for California. We have the highest supplemental poverty rate in the nation, according to the last Census...
These are the states where the poor are under-counted the most: 1 California > Supplemental poverty rate 2011-2013: 23.4% (the highest) > Official poverty rate: 16.0% (15th highest) > State price level: 4th highest > Pct. without health insurance: 17.2% (8th highest) In no state was the gap between the official poverty rate and the supplemental poverty rate wider than in California. Between 2011 and 2013, an average of 16% of residents earned incomes below the poverty line, one of the higher rates in the nation. Once taxes, cost of living, and non-cash income were taken into account, the poverty rate rose to 23.4%, the highest supplemental poverty rate nationwide. California's high cost of living is the largest force pushing state residents into poverty. The cost of rent relative to the rest of the nation was higher than in every state except for Hawaii in 2012. Every day items are also more expensive in California than in the vast majority of states. And despite a wide-ranging need for government assistance, just 9.4% of households received food stamps last year, one of the lowest rates.
California also has a lot of opportunity, leading to more people being able to pull themselves out of poverty. The cost of living is high, increasing the likelihood of young people starting out being poor. But most of them move past that. California also has no shortage of public assistance in most areas. This can be a double edged sword- there are definitly people who use this assistance to pull themselves up. But the level of assistance also makes poverty tollerable for others who would have otherwise worked their way out of it. There is that balance that you speak of. The million dollar question is how do we achieve that balance, when the tipping point is in a different place for each individual? I believe that the answer lies in more community based support and less top down government programs.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
What's a "supplemental poverty line"?
It sounds like some kind of formula to modify the poverty line to account for local cost of living in various regions.
Which, of course, would have the net effect of RAISING the poverty line, which would artificially cause more people to be identified as "poor".
I'm a little surprised you referenced it. Isn't that contrary to what you are talking about?
I am not doubting some people have a hard time making ends meet in CA. The cost of living is pretty high there. Maybe they should move. 
But anyone who has ever been to the Mississippi Delta, or the Appalacian region, or Northern Maine, or an Indian Reservation, or the South Bronx certainly understands how difficult it is to classify CA as the "poorest in the nation".
SVreX wrote: What's a "supplemental poverty line"?
Supplemental poverty measure family resources are defined as the value of cash income from all sources, plus the value of in-kind benefits that are available to buy the basic bundle of goods, minus necessary expenses for critical goods and services not included in the thresholds.
In-kind benefits include nutritional assistance, subsidized housing, and home energy assistance. Necessary expenses that must be subtracted include income taxes, social security payroll taxes, child care and other work-related expenses, child support payments to another household, and contributions toward the cost of medical care and health insurance premiums.
I don't want to get into this topic too deep, but I will say this about California. Some years ago the company I worked for wanted to transfer me to Walnut Creek, near Oakland, and after traveling there and looking around, I said no f'in way. I made decent money at the time, and even with a double my pay increase, it would have been like taking a massive hit. It was a nice area, but I couldn't have afforded to live there, and the only apartments I found that I could afford were 60 miles away.
That doesn't take into account how much more simple items such as a can of Coke costs.
I don't see how people live there and survive.
In reply to SVreX:
In reply to Boost_Crazy: What's a "supplemental poverty line"? It sounds like some kind of formula to modify the poverty line to account for local cost of living in various regions. Which, of course, would have the net effect of RAISING the poverty line, which would artificially cause more people to be identified as "poor". I'm a little surprised you referenced it. Isn't that contrary to what you are talking about? I am not doubting some people have a hard time making ends meet in CA. The cost of living is pretty high there. Maybe they should move. But anyone who has ever been to the Mississippi Delta, or the Appalacian region, or Northern Maine, or an Indian Reservation, or the South Bronx certainly understands how difficult it is to classify CA as the "poorest in the nation".
It's not perfect, but I think it does make apples to apples comparisons easier. In my opinion, it does overstate the poverty numbers, but it does so across the board. I don't believe that 1 in 4 people in California live in poverty. I also don't know how they count immigrants.
California is very diverse, but most of the decisions are made based on the metro areas, then applied state wide. Picture New York City making decisions for most of the East coast. We tax the heck out of ourselves, and legislate EVERYTHING. Many every day things you buy have different rules for California, which makes those goods more expensive. You can't compare just by income, you also need cost of living. Housing is very expensive, especially when you go where the jobs are. Moving is definitely an option that many Californians are taking. Some move to cheaper areas farther away from the job centers. We have people we call Super Commuters who drive 100+ miles each way to work. They even have the super commute on the morning traffic report. Others are moving out of state (businesses included.) I believe California recently had a net population loss for the first time.
There are places in California very similar to the places you mention, sprinkled along the Central Valley. Down south, towards the desert, there are even shanty towns, with houses made out of scrap. Anyone that has made the trek out to Las Vegas has driven right by them. Remember Hinkley from the movie Erin Brockovich? It's still there. We've had large cities go bankrupt, notably Stockton and Vallejo. If the city can't even make ends meet, imagine how it's poor are doing.
So, we take a geographic area, fill it with extremely profitable industries like wine, movies, and Silicon Valley, encourage people to relocate there en masse for the "good life", then raise the prices on everything so that we can call one of the highest earning populaces in the world "poor". 
Bizarre.
In reply to SVreX:
Just remember how large California is. Those industries that you mentioned are relatively small, and with an equally small percentage enjoying the spoils. Argriculture is very big in California, and suffering through a fourth year of drought. The state is also heavily dependent on construction, which is often feast or famine. That's not to say there still isn't a lot of opportunity. But there is also a lot of instability, and pockets of chronic poverty.
I think this thread has had more intelligent debate on this topic than congress has had in 6 years
How about this for the solution, since the new budget resolution wants more military contractor spending, we add an amendment that they must hire and train from the welfare and unemployment roles a certain percentage.
Since neither party wants to stop giving money away why not let one source of welfare get rid of the other source of welfare?
In reply to The Jeeza:
It's kind of always been that way.
There is only a small percentage of spending Congress has any control over.
Republican Congresses increase military spending and decrease welfare spending.
Democratic Congresses increase welfare spending and decrease military spending.
Rinse, repeat.
It's the same dollars.
Why not just make the military responsible for the labor and engineering to fix bridges, build roads, maintain dams, etc? The Army Corps of Engineers seem to be involved with every watershed and river flood control project in PA anyway. They do a good job. Better than PA DOT anyway. I'd be more than happy to have them fix the crumbling infrastructure of this country. It's not like the military industrial complex can't afford it - so make them more industrial than military.
Datsun1500 wrote: Here's a thought. How about a program where Illegals can get on a Citizenship path by working for the gov't building bridges, fixing roads, etc. Like the Military, sign up for 4 years, with pay, show up, do your job,Pay taxes, etc. and You go to the front of the line.
That... is an amazing idear!
Another thought; is it time for the USA to go back to being an isolated country? Kind of like China or Russia (lol Russia not really, but you get my point), they export and import, but they leave everything else the hell alone? (this applies to Canada too lately).
Is the USA/Canada/North America really safer by giving any sort of a crap about what happens across the pond? I'm starting to think it isn't.
Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Because we are too busy overseas cleaning up other peoples messes. No time for our own mess. Here's a thought. How about a program where Illegals can get on a Citizenship path by working for the gov't building bridges, fixing roads, etc. Like the Military, sign up for 4 years, with pay, show up, do your job,Pay taxes, etc. and You go to the front of the line.
I like the idea, but it is completely contrary to the current requirements of eVerify, etc.
Bottom line- it's currently illegal.
Why is that better than any other form of employment?
Are you saying the path to citizenship would be biased in favor of Government workers?
I know LOTS of undocumented workers who have worked privately for many more years than 4, showed up, done their job, paid their taxes, but are no closer to citizenship status.
I also know lots of Citizens who would really like to get a Government job, but can't. Seems kind of unfair to give preferential treatment for Government employment to undocumented workers.
the US would not have so many issues to fix overseas if we kept our meddling fingers out of other people's countries in the first place. Our version of a stable world happens to keep most of it unstable.
Our meddling with other countries has to do with our "status quo" policy which favors business interests. Prop up that E36 M3ty regime with a history of human rights violations? If it makes money for the oligarchs then hell yes! Half a million people chop each other to bloody bits in a country where we have no interest? Sorry dude but we can't be bothered.
KyAllroad wrote: Our meddling with other countries has to do with our "status quo" policy which favors business interests. Prop up that E36 M3ty regime with a history of human rights violations? If it makes money for the oligarchs then hell yes! Half a million people chop each other to bloody bits in a country where we have no interest? Sorry dude but we can't be bothered.
That's just it.. just look at the peace we would have had if not for that stupid unwritten policy
Vietnam would have never happened if we had put pressure on the French to get out
Cuba would be an ally if we had backed Castro
and Iran would not be the hot potato it is if we had simply handed over the ayatollah to them like they wanted. He was dying anyway...
mad_machine wrote:KyAllroad wrote: Our meddling with other countries has to do with our "status quo" policy which favors business interests. Prop up that E36 M3ty regime with a history of human rights violations? If it makes money for the oligarchs then hell yes! Half a million people chop each other to bloody bits in a country where we have no interest? Sorry dude but we can't be bothered.That's just it.. just look at the peace we would have had if not for that stupid unwritten policy Vietnam would have never happened if we had put pressure on the French to get out Cuba would be an ally if we had backed Castro and Iran would not be the hot potato it is if we had simply handed over the ayatollah to them like they wanted. He was dying anyway...
^ = 20/20 hindsight...
In reply to oldsaw:
True, but there are probably dozens of examples of the USA causing it's own problems like that, and a lot of them were pretty obvious at the time. The 100 years or so of US-Japan relations leading up to the attack of Pearl Harbor is a good example.
It's hard to remain neutral when we are pretty much the only superpower left, and honestly I wish a lot of times we weren't. Every time something happens somewhere everybody turns, looks at us and says 'Well? What are you going to do?'. We send in troops, some eggs get busted, now we are the scum of the earth once again. Then something else happens, everyone looks at us and says 'Well?'...
It's also time for a history lesson too.
The Japanese were buying oil from us in the 1930's. Yeah, at the time we were sort of like Saudi Arabia. Anyway, they decided they wanted pretty much all of Asia and proceeded to invade China among other places. The reports of brutality coming back (the 'Rape of Nankang' in particular) prompted Congress to cut off oil sales to them and THAT is what triggered WWII.
There was no 'ayatollah to turn over to Iran'. There was a Shah of Iran who was deposed by his own people. He did NOT come to the US, instead he was granted asylum in Egypt by Anwar Sadat. The Ayatolla Khomeini was the 'leader in exile' of the opposition which overthrew the Shah and he was running the whole thing from Paris, France. The US had for many years supported the Shah over oil sales. THAT was where we went wrong. Why did we not overthrow him? What, depose the leader of a sovereign nation? Not supposed to happen. Besides, the last time we had tried to get involved with that type stuff was in South America in the 1950's and that did not go well at all.
Vietnam was known as French Indochina at the turn of the 20th century, it was a French colony/protectorate. Things were not going exactly smoothly, then during WWII the Japanese invaded and occupied the country. (See how this ties into the China thing above?) Ho Chi Minh was the leader of the forces trying to throw the Japanese out, at the end of WWII France reasserted control of French Indochina and Ho Chi Minh turned to attacking the French. In 1954 as part of the Geneva Accords France relinquished their claim, Laos and Cambodia became independent kingdoms and Vietnam was split into North and South. So the French were gone long before we ever got involved. How did we get stuck in the mire? North Vietnam was Communist, South Vietnam was not. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese government requested our help (see the pattern here?), we first sent advisers then troops as things escalated.
Support Castro? Castro (along with Che Guevera) was already in bed with the Soviet Union; remember this was at the height of the Cold War. Such a thing was unthinkable. Batista was a corrupt sonofabitch with strong ties to the Mafia, also remember I mentioned above things had not gone well in our South America interventions? That was still real raw and fresh so we took a 'hands off' policy until after things were settling down. Batista fled to Portugal so was not being held or protected here. Kennedy tried to assassinate Castro (that's proven) so obviously he had not listened to the advisers who were familar with the earlier South American fiascos. Thanks to the assassination attempts and the Bay of Pigs Castro embarked on a lifelong quest to embarrass the US whenever he got the chance, starting with the Soviet missile crisis.
So there you have it: correction of the inaccurate depiction of history in this thread and also support for a policy of US isolationism. We are steadily becoming energy independent; IMHO once that's done we need to shut down every military base not on US soil, bring all our troops back home and fix our problems here while giving the rest of the planet the finger; they can fix their own damn problems.
Curmudgeon wrote: . There was no 'ayatollah to turn over to Iran'. There was a Shah of Iran who was deposed by his own people.
Sorry, after a long day, my mind got the two confused
You'll need to log in to post.
