USA: 37 Million Poor Hidden in the Land of Plenty

Its Amazing. Conservatives state "Work your way out of it", And liberals state "Make the state Equalize it".

But that doesn't Answer Nothing.

How come Many Socialist countries have vast proverty, Yet thier Socalist Leaders Live in luxery? (:Cough: Castro.)

How come many people work 3 jobs a day, And Still Never make it? (like My Grandfather)

I hate to tell you this, But proverty Will always Be. As long as Humans hoard Goods, While stating denial "feel good Pladitutes" like Compassionite Conservatism, or Universal Healthcare. There will Be proverty.

Until Humans can Deny Greed, And love thier Neighbor. There will be Greed.

And it Can Not be forced onto others. By laws. And does not come about by self effort. It Must come from the Heart, with love.

And that is What is in short supply these days.

Btw- I'm Rich. Not in Goods. I'm Rich. Not in stock Bonds. I'm Rich. For I love my Family, And they love me.

And No amount of money Can buy that.

With the gentrification going on in major cities, most people will not be able to afford to live within said cities or even surrounding areas wihtin the next 10-20 yrs.
www.emergingminds.org...
And Brooklyn as well.
www.gothamgazette.com...

My hometown of Paterson NJ is soon to join those ranks. We are approximately 15 minutes away from the GW bridge with 2 major highways running straight to the city. One that starts off as Broadway in Paterson(state hwy 4) and another interstate thatconnects from NY to California(I80). Not to mention even closer proximity to the New Jersey Turnpike(I95) and closer still the Garden State Parkway.
In just the past few years our railway has connected with PATH trains that run directly between NY and NJ so even if you dont drive, you could still be in Manhattan within 30 min. Our city counsel has voted to "cleanup" our downtown area in order to, and I quote,"attract the young buisness men and woman from Manhattan who would rather not live in the city". They are even building a mall of sorts downtown.
www.news12.com...
In 1999 I rented a nice one-bedroom apartment with kitchen, living room and bathroom for $500 a month with heat and hotwater included. I moved away for a year and decided to come back in 2000. The same apartment had jumped in price almost 100%!!!!!
I now live 32.8 miles west of Paterson where the rent is resonable but am wondering how long it will take before gentrification moves out here. I make $34,320 a year which is a living wage but I am 1 paycheck away from being homeless. In the coming years we will see two distinct classes of people, the rich and the poor. Or should I say the laborers and the overseers?
A good man works hard for a living. A smart man has the good man working for him.

Its Amazing. Conservatives state "Work your way out of it", And liberals state "Make the state Equalize it".

But that doesn't Answer Nothing.

Indeed. The state in its current incarnation couldn't squeeze a penny out of a dollar, and some people want to give it more money? By the same token, most people appear thoroughly lost and confused, unable to make sound decisions about such basic things as their own health and happiness.

We could do with a healthy dose of inspired leaders, like American Samurai or something. Someone the peasants could look up to.

The corporately-owned cronies of recent infamy are simply the worst possible people to put in charge of public welfare.

How come Many Socialist countries have vast proverty, Yet thier Socalist Leaders Live in luxery? (:Cough: Castro.)

Why does the POTUS cost the American people hundreds of millions of dollars, when some folks can't get enough beans to go to bed full? It's because the wealth equates with social status, so that those at higher echelons are expected to accumulate more wealth.

The idea, of course, doesn't jive with ethical standards. In a perfect world, the most meritous/virtuous would be the wealthiest and most powerful. The problem is that virtue and merit do not suffer greed gladly, and it is greed that is required to attain wealth in our society.

The answer, in my mind, is to structure a society so that it rewards virtuous behavior with wealth and power/responsiblity, and punishes ignorance and greed with public scorn and shame. In Tokugawa Japan, the merchants were the lowest of the low, and for good reason. They produced nothing, and essentially parasitized the labors of others. After a time though, they developed an ethical code of behavior and implimented it, in order to shed the shame of their profession to some degree.

Not that Tokugawa Japan was excellent in every way, just a real world example sort of similar in structure to what I'm talking about. Obviously, the key lies in the people, and their ability to adhere to commonly agreeable codes of conduct.

How come many people work 3 jobs a day, And Still Never make it? (like My Grandfather)

Because wages haven't kept up with inflation, and it's about to get a whole Hell of a lot worse. Buckle up.

Btw- I'm Rich. Not in Goods. I'm Rich. Not in stock Bonds. I'm Rich. For I love my Family, And they love me.

And No amount of money Can buy that.

Indeed. No amount of money is a substitute for what's truly important in life, IMO - Love.

It's worse. They don't count everybody in the stats, not just from the physical impossibility of the task but from policy decisions that define who gets counted. If you're unemployed for too long, you fall off the lists, etc.

One member mentioned he worked up from projects, to trailers, to apartments, to a home. Yeah, it was supposed to work that way. Maybe then, but not now for most workers. Generation 40x is taking over now from parents and bosses who had more than they ever will, and calling it downsizing (boss had a yacht, I got a kayak). Instead of Amway we've got ebay and we're making enough there on the side to go camping one weekend a year

They had welfare, we're lucky if we can find work, they had unions and we've got... Bush. What keeps me optimistic is knowing that downward mobility is good for the environment (if only more women thought that way, life would be good).

The Great Society is a fond memory...

No, socialism is not the answer. From what I see, socialism only centralizes power to the state, and eventually enslaves most people with massive taxes and making them dependant on social welfare from the state. The state is then controlled by a small number of people, ultimately for their benefit.

However the corporatist way America is going is certainly not any better.


Three words: Inflation, deindustrialization and outsourcing.

Originally posted by SwearBear
From what I see, socialism only centralizes power to the state, and eventually enslaves most people with massive taxes and making them dependant on social welfare from the state. The state is then controlled by a small number of people, ultimately for their benefit.

It's funny, but that sound exactly like what we have in the U.S. right now, and have had for a long time....

It's funny how people equate all that stuff to socialism, but not notice that that's how it is in their own country.

Look for answers that don't come with state labels

"it was all about my ends *censored* friends and foes."

-tupac

the sillicone industrial technology corperate capitalist complacent valley and the despoliation of wealth associated with the adherence of its continuance.

the dope fiends perturbing onslaught of digressing consummation and the scientifically adept integreties of revered encompassing enhancments to advanced productivity efficiencies.

lets come together

[edit on 23-2-2006 by sanctum]

Socialism holds the state accountable for its starving people. It forces them to make decisions with the population in mind, rather than personal pocketbooks. It is usually equated with further gov't control, but at this point, do you think you would even notice? A lot of our better systems are pretty communist in origin.

Uncle Sam wouldnt be infringing on my life nearly as much ensuring I had good health care and a decent education as he is with phone taps and this BS news media. Matter of fact...can we trade the two?

This is a response to whoflungum.

You seem to be a member of the previous generation, you've been to Vietnam, when I was getting close to being conceived.
Times change, I see people of the previous generation living the good life, with good jobs and good retirement packages, I look at them and think; if you were a part of my generation today, I would doubt you would be so well off.
I know a lot of people of my generation have to live with further erosion of wealth, pay raises fall behind the rate of inflation year after year, it don't get easier. Companies don't want to, and can't afford to pay living wages, but do pay subsistence wages, just enough to live on, but not enough to get ahead.
And we blame the pimped out hood rich for doing what they do, and some of us feel like a sucker.
Personally, I will bust my hump till I drop dead, the boomers had their after war rebuild party, the party is over, now we got to clean it up, for a lower wage (of couse:@@
Something is wrong when people got to bust their hump, and never get ahead, there once was a time when a person worked hard and could climb up from their hole, but there isn't enough as much anymore and you keep getting shoved back into your hole.
What's the point, and some people just give up, where in earlier generations the opportunity was much greater, and so was the motivation to get ahead.

I think the poor folks are waiting for the whole house of cards to fall, just so we can all be equal again.

Let's check out what happened since G.W. came to Power:

Census

Wikipedia - Poverty in the United States

Big Path Statistics



Full View

Looks to me, that since G.W. came to Power, things just went Downhill. If you check out the chart above (which is BEST of all three IMHO), you can see, that during the Clinton Era the number of people living in Poverty slowly, but efficently DE-creased.

When Bush&Co. come to Power - you can see the STEEP rise, starting the first day he was elected.

Why?

Here, let me show you why:

Big Path Statistics



Full View

Hmmmm - Tax Cut 2001?

Yeah - let's give the RICH 1% even MORE money!

Good nows for all those Living UNDER the poverty line, fighting and struggling each day - for them, things are just about to get worse.

Big Path Statistics



Full View

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Full View

Well, things sure are not looking Great.

Oil Prices are Sky High - and the Poor probably do not have any stocks or shares of Oil corporations, to start earning money and profits from this constant price changing of crude oil in the free markets.

And ofcourse - the president of United States has given yet another Gift to his People, which he was supposed to Lead: Record Breaking Federal Budget Deficit!

What about JOBS?

Big Path Statistics



Full View

Again - a SIGNIFICANT decrease when the Bush comes to power!

What HAS Increased during his Rule?

Big Path Statistics



Full View

Yep - you guessed it.

Even More money then BEFORE just for WAR.

None of it for Poor...

Thanks mister President!

Nice pretty graphs there Souljah...

good points also...
they fail to mention one thing though...

That the main reason that the Tax break didn't help the economy, is because "trickle down" economics is really and truly a "piss on the little guy" economics plan... and I ain't fooled...

Clinton did better, because he invested his breaks where they count...
the MIDDLE CLASS: the class of people struggling to make new businesses, and make new (non corporate) jobs.... and it worked...

giving this class a break was rewarded with lots of business startups (and some subsiquent bankruptsies) which resulted in that money being SPENT... not hoarded... (which is what the trickle down plan is supposed to do)

Giving the top money people the break, was awarded with a very conservative "thanks for the bonus" (aka: thanks- we will save this for a rainy day)

Unless you were BMW, a fur maker, a wine vineyard, or a specialized cheese maker, you probably didn't experience a sales boost...
But hey...
go ahead and give another tax break to the richest...
I am sure they will appreciate it, and might even give a kickback, in the form of a campaign contribution.

Privelage in America is like an elephant in your living-room that no one will talk about it.

If the president had been born in a trailer he'd still be there.

My favourite US book is The Great Gatsby. It was written in the 1920's and seems to be the final American word on class. We appear to be moving back to the 20's.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by rizla]

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

That the main reason that the Tax break didn't help the economy, is because "trickle down" economics is really and truly a "piss on the little guy" economics plan... and I ain't fooled...

Omy oh my! So THAT'S how it works!

Who'da thunk it...

Good post LtL. Thanks - and to you too souljah, of course. Always such great research.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Indeed. What's the poverty line?

I make $5 even an hour and go to school. My rent is $1000 a month (I'm in Tampa, stupid Tampa). Gas is 2.30-2.45, I have car insurance, electric, water, phone, internet/cable (which I can't live without, or else there'd be no point of me being in school

). Of course between these I have credit cards. to pay for, (since I can't afford anything else). I also need to eat and have the car fixed every now and then. Thank god my parents are there to help me out.

Do the math. I'm pretty sure I make negative dollars an hour.

My freind has an associates degree in computer networking. No job market for that anymore. So insteead he makes 9-11 thousand a year as an assistant MANAGER at Papa John's Pizza (Corporate jerk-offs). So he would work 50-70 hours a week, and be broke.

On e quick question...I've never been to Europe (probably never will be able to), but is it like that there...where you work your ass off, only to have more money takin' away from you?!

Hell, I even give money I don't have to children charities and what-not. America is just turning into a crappy hidden slave empire.

Hmmmm,. I have a degree in the exact same thing and I have a good job. Maybe there is something in your friends background that is stopping him?
They DO background checks on network people simply because of the sensitive nature of the job.

I love the fact that the external link (quote) from the Observer (as posted by the OP) starts out saying "Americans believe hard work will..." and then follows saying "but vast numbers cannot...". That is propoganda intending for anyone reading the article/report to assume that those who live below the poverty line are hardworkers, do not want to live in their current situation and are striving to simply make headway above the poverty line and a host of other assumptions. Horrible.

There are people on wellfare who have no business being on wellfare. There are people who choose to make a life of crime, overindulgence in drugs, sex or miscallaneous other non-productive activites.

Going to college doesn't garuntee anything. Certain bachelor degrees offer jobs as teachers, but there are many people who are sometimes surprised that their degree in sociology is worthless when applying for many jobs.

37 million below the poverty line simply means 37 million below the poverty line. Not 37 million below the poverty are hard workers with 2 jobs an MS in Computer Science and have a family of 7 to feed.

First of all, I'd like to divert the discussion away from ideas like "choice", "lazy", "fault", "personal responsibility", and even "opportunity"--which is a HUGE word in terms of what it means and its implications. These are relatively subjective concepts, and I have yet to read anyone giving a reasonable and general definition of the same. Everyone can give a multitude of examples showing the rags-to-riches story. I'm willing to bet, however, that there are 100:1 examples showing the opposite.

I see wealth and poverty differently. Wealth, defined here as cash and capital, is like energy: it can not be created nor destroyed, only channeled and converted. When the rich get richer, that money doesn't simply appear from nowhere, it is acquired by them--or given them, depending on your point of view--through business ventures, tax breaks, corporate bonuses etc. (Read 3/15/06 article in the New York Times regarding utilities and the legal practice of charging customers taxes that were never paid for a small example of what I'm talking about).

Capitalist theory speculates that the so-called "invisible hand" is the wondrous act of economic self-correction i.e. the rich will eventually fall, and their profits will be recycled into the system, thus bringing about general equilibrium (the middle class).

Where the problem lies, is that once at the top, capital ceases to circulate. I personally believe that all this "invisible hand" nonsense only applies to certain markets and conditions. There is a point when wealth becomes self-perpetuating, which would violate my wealth=energy hypothesis--and it this violation, in my opinion, of perpetual economic motion that leads to the continued evaporation of the middle class (equilibrium).

What flabbergasts me is when the lowest of the poor flog themselves for not being in a better state. There is personal responsibility for actions, and then there's Stockholm syndrome--I have never seen a clearer case of the latter than in America's impoverished class. Have we all forgotten about the Social Contract?


"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Dom Helder Camara

"Was there ever domination that did not appear natural to those who possessed it?"
John Stewart Mill

What no one seems to have mentioned here is that the US Government has spent 15 trillion dollars in the attempt to end poverty since Lyndon B. Johnson *GASP*

So what do any of you who thinks that the liberal way is better; or that Bush has caused an increase of poverty; have to say to this great waste of money?

Imagine if that money was put entirely into the Space Program...do you think there'd be as much poverty then; with such a high tech economy?

Yeah well people like to give their families life stories so here is mine:
Mom: Started out as a dirt poor farm child, farmed for 30 years of her life, managed to go to colledge, came out a great teacher, got a job and now is still at the bottom of the rung.... wow.... we moved up SO MUCH! You know not everyone can be a computer engineer or get a cushy job, they ship those out to India now. This nation had LESS problems when it kept business HERE, we had a HUGE factory complex and could make just about anything. Its amusing how people put down those 37 million and the others who are not listed by saying they wont work, are to lazy, etc etc etc. Well if you have to have 3-4 jobs to cut it and have to pay rent, food, clothing, transport, etc. you wont have ANY money to go to school. People fail to realize the amount of jobs in the US is dwindling when it comes to paying ones, and now the paying ones are getting cut back or shipped out. That 37 million need to make room, more are on the way every day now thanks to good ol georgie who never really had to work a day of his life because he had so much money waiting for him. However if he had done that they would not have been able to use him as a puppet so....
I think we need to slash the military budged by 50%, this will be enough to maintain a STRONG defence, the nation might not be able to maintain an OFFENCIVE force but we dont need one unless attacked so thats irrevilant. How can we "help" other nations if we cant even help OURSELVES? We cant even help people after a natural distaster, so how can we help an entire NATION (refering to NO specificaly not the surrounding areas) when all the jobs that MAINTAINED this nation for hundreds of years are all shipped out? You know not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, engineer, computer tech, or anything else you might say or use as an excuse for there being so many well paying jobs.
The proper national settup:
---- =rich
-------------------------------------- = middle class
------- = poor

What it looks like now
- =rich
------------- = middle class
------------------------------------------------------------ = poor class or getting there
Rome followed number 2 and fell, so now its our turn unless we do something about it. Its EASY for a person of the middle class to preach to others about there being so many jobs and having to work for something, they dont have to, its all given to them now. Good news is they will be joining the real world soon as a homeless, jobless, or drunkard soon because they like to stick cotton in their ears and scream there is no such thing as ghosts even though there is millions of them right in front of them.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
What no one seems to have mentioned here is that the US Government has spent 15 trillion dollars in the attempt to end poverty since Lyndon B. Johnson *GASP*

Well, *Gasp*, guess what! That money never got anywhere near the 'poor' and if it did it was apparently not in the form that could actually help them. Do you imagine people enjoy living the way they do or do you imagine it benefits the government to always have a certain percentage of people poor enough to put pressure on the classes above them?

So what do any of you who thinks that the liberal way is better; or that Bush has caused an increase of poverty; have to say to this great waste of money?

Well when you give more money to the rich ( thus taking it out of general circulation) you are robbing the poor blind and also creating inflation thus stealing even more.

Imagine if that money was put entirely into the Space Program...do you think there'd be as much poverty then; with such a high tech economy?

High tech is not even normally very efficient so what kinda logic is this anyways?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
What no one seems to have mentioned here is that the US Government has spent 15 trillion dollars in the attempt to end poverty since Lyndon B. Johnson *GASP*

Well, *Gasp*, guess what! That money never got anywhere near the 'poor' and if it did it was apparently not in the form that could actually help them. Do you imagine people enjoy living the way they do or do you imagine it benefits the government to always have a certain percentage of people poor enough to put pressure on the classes above them?

So what do any of you who thinks that the liberal way is better; or that Bush has caused an increase of poverty; have to say to this great waste of money?

Well when you give more money to the rich ( thus taking it out of general circulation) you are robbing the poor blind and also creating inflation thus stealing even more.

Imagine if that money was put entirely into the Space Program...do you think there'd be as much poverty then; with such a high tech economy?

High tech is not even normally very efficient so what kinda logic is this anyways?

Stellar

You better take what I say next very seriously because unless you stood in a bread line for days; or rushed into a Mall to buy winter clothes so you don't freeze to death and it was empty; you don't know what poverty is.

Americans don't know what poverty is; and even the bums on the streets are often dressed better than people in the third world; or how bad it was in the final days of the Soviet Union!

Now here's my infinite wisdom about economics to impart upon your fragile and obviously impressionable youth.

The rich make wealth: Not hoard it. How many billions more dollars are there now thanks to Bill Gates, thanks to William Buffet, thanks to numerous successful business men?

It is the poor; the governments; the bureaucracies that hoard wealth. Like parasites they consume it and waste it by the their sheer numbers or ineffectiveness or lack of ingenuity.

If you want a rich nation; it must be one where the rich are allowed to get richer. Only then will the poor have any wealth from which to suck off the teate of plenty.