Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Poverty, Part One: Who is "Poor"? What Qualifies as "Poverty"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:45 AM
Original message
Poverty, Part One: Who is "Poor"? What Qualifies as "Poverty"?
Last week I did an OP on President Clinton and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and whether Hillary would "revisit" that piece of legislation, as she has promised to do with NAFTA. Heads exploded, invectives were hurled, and all the Clintonistas went to DefCon 4 and stayed there. All the emphasis was on personality rather than subject matter, so not much got accomplished. So, I'm going to try something different today: I'm going to try and start a conversation about "poverty". The poll I cite is from 5 years out from The Welfare Reform Act, but well before the effects of the Bush Presidencies and their 9/11 vendetta was felt. So, fasten your seatbelts, here goes:

Back in 2001, NPR, Kaiser, and the Kennedy School of Government conducted a poll on Poverty. The poll, "Poverty in America", examined America's attitudes and beliefs about poverty, and came up with some stunning findings.

Yes, the poll is six years old now. But, since then, the rich have only gotten richer, and the poor? Well, they are not doing so well. The Housing Bubble has burst. The dollar is falling. The deficit has been run up so badly, our gradchildren will be paying it off. A barrel of Oil is at near to an all-time high. And, China owns enough of our debt that just a little currency manipulation, and we could be in dire straights in the blink of an eye. With all these things in mind, I thought I'd post some of the findings today. If you are interested, there is more as well as charts and numbers at the link.


Poverty In America



Americans aren’t thinking a lot about the poor these days. A new survey by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government found that only about one in 10 Americans names poverty, welfare, or something similar as one of the two top issues government should address. Nevertheless, when they are asked about it directly, most Americans think that poverty is still a problem in this country, even in these generally prosperous times. In fact, a majority of Americans think poverty is not just a problem but a big problem, and another third say it’s somewhat of a problem. Despite that characterization, however, Americans are divided on why poverty is a problem and on what should be done about it, the survey found.

Here are some of the key findings:

:graybox: Americans perceive the federal government’s definition of poverty as being too low. The government says that a family of four with an income higher than $17,029 is not poor. However, more than three in five Americans (64%) say that a family of f our with an income of $20,000 is poor, and two in five (42%) say a family of four earning $25,000 is poor. More important, perhaps, is the way low-income respondents themselves described their lives. Not surprisingly, people living below the official poverty level reported the most serious problems - in such areas as having enough money for rent, transportation, or food. But people with incomes between the poverty level and twice the poverty level also reported serious problems in these areas. For instance, about 40% of the people in that group say they or someone in their immediate family fell behind in their utility payments or couldn’t pay for medical care in the last year; and more than a third say that at some point they had too little money to buy enough food. By contrast, only 17% of those making more than twice the poverty level reported not being able to afford enough food.

:graybox: Americans are divided over the causes of poverty. About half the public says the poor are not doing enough to help themselves out of poverty, and the other half says that circumstances beyond their control cause them to be poor. Low-income Americans — that is, those making less than twice the federal poverty level, or about $34,000 per year for a family of four — are only slightly more likely than other Americans to feel it is due to circumstances. But when asked about specific causes of poverty, low-income Americans are significantly more likely than other Americans to name drug abuse, medical bills, too few jobs (or too many being part-time or low-wage), too many single-parent families, and too many immigrants. When asked what is the No. 1 cause of poverty, low-income Americans are much more likely to name drug abuse, and the poorest Americans — those living below the federal poverty level — are nearly twice as likely as middle- and upper-income Americans to rank drug abuse so high. The non-poor are more likely to say that the No. 1 cause of poverty is poor-quality public schools, but, as noted in the chart below, both groups are equally likely to name schools as a major cause.

:graybox: Americans are also divided over welfare. Asked about welfare, Americans divide almost evenly in their views on how much welfare recipients really need help from the government. However, in this regard there are significant differences between the perceptions of low-income Americans and those with higher incomes. For instance, about half of Americans making more than twice the poverty level say that most welfare recipients could get along without assistance if they tried, and half say they could not. Similarly, about half say poor people today have easy lives because they get government benefits without doing anything in return; By contrast, only about a third of low-income Americans say the poor have it easy, and about four in 10 say welfare recipients could get along without it. Although these are significant differences in attitudes between low-income Americans and those with higher incomes, it is interesting to note the high percentage of low-income people who think that the poor have easy lives (35%) or that welfare recipie nts don’t really need the help (39%) — or who express similar views of the poor in other questions. The poor may generally not be as likely to hold such views as the non-poor, but a substantial number of them agree with those who are better off.

:graybox: Americans who know about the new welfare law like the way it is working. The survey found similar results in its examination of the new welfare law. About half of Americans know of the new law’s existence. Among them, 61% say they think the new law is working well. And the most important reason they give for why it is working well is that it requires people to go to work. Americans appear to value work so strongly that they support welfare reform even if it leads to jobs that keep people in poverty. The vast majority of those who know there has been a major change in the welfare laws (73%) believes that people who have left the welfare rolls are still poor, despite having found jobs. (Although low-income Americans who know about the new welfare law are less likely to say that the law is working well or that the main reason it is working well is that it requires people to go to work, still a majority agrees with those in higher income brackets on both counts.)

:graybox: Americans are unsure about the effectiveness of government programs for the poor. Although Americans (at least those who know the law exists) generally approve of the new welfare law, they express some ambivalence about government programs aimed at helping the poor. For instance, about half believe that government programs aren’t having much impact one way or the other on the condition of poor people (low-income people don’t differ from others on this). On the other hand, people want the government to try — especially when it comes to programs designed to help people who are trying to help themselves. Large majorities support expanding job-training programs (94%), improving public schools in low-income areas (94%), increasing tax credits for low-income workers (80%), and expanding subsidized day care (85%) and subsidized housing (75%). Support, while still high, drops off when it comes to programs that provide cash or cash-like benefits; 54% support increasing cash assistance for families and 61% support making food stamps more available. Support for all these measures declines considerably when Americans are asked whether they would be willing to have their taxes raised to pay for them, but about three in five Americans (56%) are willing to accept a tax increase.

:graybox: Familiarity with poverty doesn’t breed sympathy. People with friends or family who are poor but are not poor themselves are not particularly sympathetic to the poor. For instance, 37% of people who are not poor and do not have any friends or family who are poor say that poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently; approximately the same percentage of people with friends or family who are poor (39%) say the same thing. This contrasts starkly with low-income people themselves; 54% of them say that the poor lead hard lives.

:graybox: Americans believe that poor people work, but that their jobs don’t necessarily pull them out of poverty. More than 60% of Americans say they think that most poor people work. This is an increase from the 49% who held this view in 1994. In fact, most low-income people report that they do work; excluding students and retirees, about 65% of low-income people work (53% of those making less than the poverty level, and 71% of those making between the poverty level and twice the poverty level). More than two-thirds of Americans (69%) say there are jobs available for anyone who is willing to work. Although this perception is strongest among people with incomes more than twice the federal poverty level (72% say there are jobs available), it is still high among those with low incomes (62%). However, Americans also say that the jobs available to low-income people aren’t very good ones. About three out of five (59%) of those who say there are jobs available for most welfare recipients who want to work also say that the jobs they can get do not pay enough to support a family. About the same proportion of low-income (62%) and non-low income (59%) Americans hold this view.

:graybox: Democrats and Republicans express substantially different opinions about poverty. The survey reveals deep political divisions in the country on the subject of poverty. In question after question — especially those having to do with attitudes about poverty or welfare — the public was split about 50-50. But when the responses were separated by political party, 55%-65% of Democrats were on one side, and 55%-65% of Republicans were on the other side. Nevertheless, there is strong support even among Republicans for programs that help people who are trying to help themselves (though support is not as strong as it is among Democrats). However, when it comes to paying for the programs, Republicans are much less likely to want to raise taxes. Forty-three percent of Republicans say they would be willing to raise taxes, while 53% say they would not; 67% of Democrats are willing to raise taxes, and only 31% are not.

:graybox: Black and white Americans are divided over the magnitude of the poverty problem, the causes of poverty, perceptions of the poor, and welfare. Blacks (72%) are more likely than whites (52%) to rate poverty a big problem; to say outside circumstances are the main cause of poverty (57% to 44%); to say that poor people have hard lives (59% to 39%); to say it is harder today than it was ten years ago to get out of poverty through hard work (58% to 48%); to say that the government could eliminate poverty (67% to 40%); and to say that most welfare recipients really want to work (54% to 45%). Whites (49%) are more likely than blacks (36%) to say poor people are not doing enough to help themselves out of poverty; to say that poor people have it easy (49% to 31%); to say the government cannot eliminate poverty (56% to 31%); and to say that welfare encourages women to have more children than they would otherwise (60% to 48%). These divisions generally hold across income lines.

Charts, Findings, Methodology at:
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/poverty/



As I write this, southern California burns, much as Katrina drowned, right before our eyes. Our fellow DU-ers in the line of that fire, as those who were in the line of Katrina are suffering major losses. Our hearts go out to them. But, I also ask you to consider your conceptions about poverty from this perspective as well. Losing everything you own can be devastating. Poverty is where some will end up. Consider that as you consider the findings of this poll. Remember all that has happened between 2001 and now.

I wonder if, after all this time, people would change those answers and attitudes? Since then, there has been Katrina where we watched the poor die right on our tv screens. And, they were left to die just because they were poor and most of them were not white. There has been the occupation of Iraq, that so far, has cost Americans billions -- maybe trillions. The sub-prime mortgage market has collapsed, taking housing equities of those in the middle class with it. And, still the richest 1% of all Americans get their cushy tax cuts. Were all waiting to get trickled on, but it isn't happening. So, how would this poll change if it were redone today?

I wonder.

I hope so.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. The issue of poverty is a defining one
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 07:58 AM by groovedaddy
It says something about who we are as a society - pluralistic in values, as demonstrated in the results of this poll.
It is also why "values" (and identifying them) are so important. Framing issues within the context of people's values, so the Repubs have found, can win elections. Dems are getting hip to this but too often, it comes across as phony. Repub voters don't seem to mind that "phoniness" as much as Dem voters do.
Pulling the poor back into the political process could prove to be a boon to the Democratic party - only if there is something substantial done by the Dems to level the economic playing field. Provide the opportunity, point it out and let them seize it. Through this, there is a potential to gain MILLIONS of loyal voters. The repubs will NEVER do this. Hopefully, the Dems will seize the opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree. The "defining" issue of poverty has no chance of being dealt with by Republicans.
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 08:12 AM by Totally Committed
But, are Democrats willing to step up and demand the people they elect do something about it?

So far, only Kucinich and Edwards have talked about poverty as a relevant issue in their campaigns, and have come up with "plans" (if you can call them that) to "combat" poverty when elected. Even then, Edwards seems willing, only, to address the "working poor", and not those who are unable to work, and live a very scary and unsettling existence, never knowing where the next administration and their fellow Americans will choose to shove them for convenience.

It does NOT seem "defining" to the people who are running for the Democratic Party's nomination. And, it probably won't be unless we make it clear to them, IT IS FOR US. (Granted, as of late we are seeing the politicians we have elected don't really give a flying rat's ass what we care about and what we want, anyway, but... that's the subject for another OP and another time.)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

TC


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I don't think they will listen on this issue until poor people vote in numbers
sufficient to get their attention. For most voters now, poverty doesn't seem to be an issue that determines who they vote for. We can tell them all we want that it matters to us but it won't matter until that is some how translated into votes or polling numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. The "poor" are often kept from voting for this very reason.
Jim Crow laws, Voter ID's, and just the plain BS that is pulled in the poorer districts in key states every election -- long lines, purges of voter rolls, harassment -- there is a concerted effort to make sure the "poor" remain voiceless. They let New Orleans drown for that reason. Thos that survived were scattered elsewhere, leaving the only Blue part of Louisiana Red.

This is why those of us who can say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I", should speak up. NOW.

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Not to mention the so-called "War on Drugs," which disenfranchises many of the poor. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Right, you are about that!
The prison population would dwindle and the voter numbers would go up if we could just repeal that racist, classist piece of crap.

I totally agree.

TC


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. Exactly...lower turnouts almost always favor repubs
Even while placing roadblocks to voting, it is cynicism and despair that keep most away from the polls. They've heard so many promises only to see them broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. Who was it who stood in line to vote for 3, 5, 7 and even more hours??
Was that middleclass people who stood in line for hours???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. And, this, is the conundrum that faces DU:
All OPs about "personalities" turn into flamewars, but all OPs strictly about an issue -- even an issues as basic to the heart and soul of the Democratic Party as POVERTY, is left to sink like a stone.

Are we so vapid, so superficial, that we can only talk about candidates aside from their policies, or IN SPITE of them?

This is why problems like POVERTY is not often addressed here, and why all the "personalities" dominate the threads.

Think about it, and think about replying to this thread. I know you have something helpful, or something encouraging to say.

Thanks,

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. You are so very right.... Liberals don't see poverty as "sexy" enough to bother with.
Yet, they will get angry and blame us poor folk when they don't get the number of votes from us they want.

They can't have it both ways!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Have no time to reply much, interesting article, tho. As a chronic member of the 'working poor', thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hellooooooooo . . . We're talking about poverty here!
So far, no "names" have been involved, and no "political entities" have been insulted (except us, of course...) Is that what it takes to make DU-ers pay attention?

Prove me wrong. Let's talk about this!

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. Do I have to put "Clinton" in the title of this OP to get a conversation going?
I will if I have to!

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. Kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. Is DU concerned with Poverty, and issues of soul and compassion...
or are we just interested in SHIT like this? --

Dennis Kucinich supports racist hats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3640533

We have to be better than this! Otherwise, Democrats ARE NO BETTER THAN Republicans!

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. Nope. So many are willing to not vote for any Dem nominee
Which means they have no problem with another 8 years of Repug rule... which means they couldn't care less about the poor getting poorer, and the destruction of the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Thank you for your input.
If our choice is between ANY DLC candidate and a Republican, I think it's safe to say only the rich will be taken care of... the rich and the corporations. The Middle Class and the poor will be basically screwed.

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. your OP is such a profound statement, yet your post here indicates
that there is some sort of disconnect.

Are you telling me that a Giuliani or Romney presidency would be equal to that of a Clinton presidency? With all due respect, have you been paying attention? I'm not for political dynasties either, but haven't you noticed a distinct difference between Clinton's presidency and the two Bushes?

People came out of poverty in Clinton's presidency; more people were pushed into poverty during Bush's. I support Clinton's version of welfare reform because it's not just about money, there's a social/psychological aspect to poverty that must be addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I wanted this to stay about poverty, not interject the election into it.
But, since you asked, I believe both Parties have broken faith with the poor. Each, in its own way has dealt multiple blows those "less fortunate". I believe that.

I am hoping, that by educating Democrats about poverty at the grassroots level, we can begin to choose candidates that will truly help ALL Americans, not just the rich, white ones. That's all I seek to do here. I'd like the OP to speak to the urgency I feel about it as an issue.

Thanks!

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. OH, come on! Instead of grinding your same old ax, try caring about poor people for a change!
I'm so tired of the same old, same old...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. Seattle Poverty Activist Here!
Hillary Clinton will not do anything about the Welfare Reform bill. A few years ago she went around the country with Joe LIEberman touting as to how "successful" it is. IN NY Guiliani used Welfare Reform to undermine the city worker unions there and she did nothing. In essence what he did was put welfare recipients to work working for their welfare grants (at less than $0.50 an hour) and edged out unions workers with livable wages. Hillary Clinton thinks this is good ~ in other words slave labor and undermining of unions was of no concern to her ~ as it is of little concern to her with women who work for pennies in other countries under NAFTA.

Poverty is complicated. IMO in order for especially mothers to get support, it all depends on how "work" is defined. We think raising children is "doing nothing" as is defined in Welfare DEformed. This is a horrible thing to believe IMO. Raising children very significantly contributes to communities and here is why:

I often have to tell a childless person this who asks, "Why should I support other people's kids?" that with their thinking and since we are paying our own parent's social security and Medicare and if they remain childless, why should my kids support them when they get old? Always shuts them up.

Calling parenting "work" would foster more support for working moms and parents in general. If we saw parenting as an actual job, we would garner more support in society. The reasons parenting should be considered worthwhile work are many as this work ensures that our society will continue after we are gone. Our children will fight in our wars, run our country, and keep up our infrastructure (roads, hospitals, personal care, etc). You cannot expect corporations or governments to support working parents with things like paid leave, sick leave, etc., unless they see parenting as a full time job. Also low income women would be supported more for making choices for their children instead of treating them as if they are a "luxury". Women's work has *always* been denigrated and raising children and home care has always been disrespected ,even by feminists, when if we raised this work to the important place it deserves, we could see significant change in our economic futures.

Poverty is about racism, sexism and classism. More white women are on welfare for instance, but people of color, especially women of color, make far less in wage if they work outside of the home. Women of all races who grow up poor, will almost certainly remain that way their adult lives ~ even if they have an education or skills. We are WAY behind as to defining poverty as well, it IS complicated. We also have to see poverty more realistically.

For instance there is as much drug use in upper income neighborhoods as in lower income neighborhoods, but the well off can hide their addictions better and are not scrutinized (such as by police, social workers, etc) as much if at all. We often blame poverty on drug addiction, but I know few low income people (especially women) who are drug addicts, as a matter of fact most of the poor I know are not users, they could never afford to be. This is just one example I see if being more realistic about poverty ~ it is easier to blame all poor for being addicts instead of looking at the REAL societal reasons for it, such as lack of parental support, low pay for work, racist, sexist and classist practices that do not offer real advancement.

Just because you do not get paid does not mean you don't contribute to your community. As a matter of fact I would ask which is more worthwhile for our future ~ giving all your time, energy and talents making some rich man richer or putting those things into raising children so we ensure our own futures?

My 2 cents (which is about all I have)

Cat In Seattle
P.S. I am not always popular with what I write but I am passionate, lol. Read this I wrote on Daily Kos as a sample of what I write about: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/22/113313/502 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/4/91548/41225
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thank you so much for that outstanding post!
I'm going to check out your Kos Diary right now.

TC


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
46. Thank you for your excellent understanding!
:applause:

It is heartbreaking to be poor, and to have so little understanding and concern from "liberals". It's crushing.

I very much appreciate your words, and wish that ALL DUers would take them to heart!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
40. I'm sorry I came to this thread late! This is what happens with poverty threads on DU... they sink
I thank you so very much for posting this, and am sorry that this is the result on DU... little reaction. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. Giving this some R&K love!
Thank you TC. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thank you, too, Nutmegger!
:hi:

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
16. kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
22. A Clintonista would like to thank you for
this informative post, I will try to comment on the subject in the next day or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Thanks, Jim...
I'll look forward to hearing from you on this subject.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
24. This is
a good and substantive OP about a subject that doesn't get nearly enough discussion here or in the real world. I don't think it matters that the poll is 6 years old. As someone who felt that Clinton's welfare reform was troubling and far too dismissive of those in poverty, I appreciate the subject being brought up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Wow. You agree with me?



Thanks! That's awesome, but kind of scary.


TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Sorry you see it as scary
Poverty has long been an issue for me. I think we desperately need leadership on this critical topic. I vividly remember my father saying 25-30 years ago, that the biggest threat this country faced was the growing gap between rich and poor.

And perhaps if you read at least some of what I wrote with a somewhat open mind, you wouldn't be so shocked. I've recognized for quite some time that it's likely that on many fundamental issues you and those similar to you, and I, agree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. I was joking.
I think it's great you and I can see eye-to-eye on this subject.

I thought the graphic would indicate that I was joking. Take a deep breath, and don't take everything so personally.

We need a "this is a joke" smilie, I think.


TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. "And perhaps if you read at least some of what I wrote with a somewhat open mind, "
Wait a minute, cali... as you've been told a number of times, you're so busy putting people down and trying to get their posts erased, that it's a bit hard to actually *hear* you.

If you are concerned about poverty, I, too, would like to hear your words.

But, I won't tolerate the slams.

Try being a bit interested in hearing what others have to say and think, and you might find there are more dialogues happening.

~~waiting to see if I get slammed again for being honest~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
27. the poll questions
I am very surprised that only half of Americans know about the welfare reform of the '90s. I wonder if it is intentional on the part of Conservatives to not discuss the reform so that they can invoke the Reagan imagery of welfare queens....

I think the results might be different if the poll questions had been phrased differently. For instance, instead of asking if people were willing to pay more taxes for the welfare programs, how about asking if they thought it would be a good idea to cut out the millions that have been wasted in no-bid contracts in Iraq to make sure babies have healthcare and formula.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
45. " I wonder if it is intentional on the part of Conservatives to not discuss the reform "
It's waaaay past time to stop blaming conservatives for everything! That welfare deform, that was so damaging to poor people, wasn't a conservative initiative! That was DEM, and it was a "popular" president, to boot.

Liberals right here at DU don't want to know exactly what that mess did to poor people, so let's stop blaming it all on conservatives, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
33. Blog: More for war while the poor freeze

More for war while the poor freeze


By Kéllia Ramares
Online Journal Associate Editor

Oct 24, 2007, 01:24

George W. Bush's notion of fiscal responsibility is to spend as much as he can get away with on the military, give away as much tax money as he can in the form of tax cuts for the ultra-rich and contracts for his friends in industry, and then to balance the budget on the backs of poor and middle-class Americans. In the process, the man who claims to lead a "global war on terror" terrorizes millions of people in the United States.

His latest act of fiscal terror on the American people is to threaten a veto of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill as too expensive. This bill provides funding for many programs that are important to the well-being of America's poor and middle class. LIHEAP, the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is among them. Right now, 38 million low-income American households are eligible for assistance to pay their energy bills. But LIHEAP can help only 16 percent of those households. In contrast to budgets for American weapons of mass destruction, LIHEAP's budget has increased by only $300 million since it started in 1981.

The White House is proposing a 44 percent cut from FY 2006 in LIHEAP funding levels, a cut that will mean reducing individual grants of assistance and dropping 1.1 million households from the program altogether.

Mark Wolfe, executive director of NEADA, the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, the primary educational and policy organization for the state and tribal directors of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), said in a phone interview with me that more and more people are seeking help with their energy bills.

"It's not just the very, very poor anymore. Now what we're finding these families making $25-35,000 a year -- families that you kind of think of as working families -- coming in and asking for assistance because the bills have gotten just so high. The real problem that we're facing is that energy prices are going up. They're continuing to go up. The era of cheap energy is over."

The Energy Department predicts that the cost for heating oil will be up 22 percent over last winter. DOE is also forecasting a 16 percent increase for propane, 10 percent for natural gas and 4 percent for residential electricity. The estimates may be low if oil prices continue climbing.

In July of this year, NEADA completed the first national survey of utility arrearages and shut-offs. Based on a sample of 11 states representing 25 percent of all households, an estimated 1.2 million households have been disconnected from electric and natural gas service in the March through May period following the expiration of state shut-off moratoriums. The report stated that many states believe that the numbers this year are higher than in the past as a result of increasing electric and natural gas rates coupled with a cutback this year in the funding for LIHEAP. The program had $3.2 billion in FY 2006 and funding level of $2.1 billion in FY 2007. Bush wants to cut the program back to $1.78 billion in FY 2008. Contrast that to the defense authorization bill for FY 2008, which calls for $648.8 billion in military spending, and that doesn't count the Department of Energy's military spending, Bush's "off-budget" war spending, or the black projects that don't show up in congressional budget figures.

Wolfe wants to see the government step in to help the poor meet their energy needs. "We really have to guarantee a minimum level of access to home energy. It really is a public health situation and it really can be life or death. People really do cut back on their medicine and they do make choices that really aren't in the interests of public health.

Last February, when Bush first called for the LIHEAP cut, NEADA estimated that, among the households currently receiving home energy assistance:

:graybox: 94 percent have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, a child under 18, or has a single adult living with one or more children. More than three quarters reported an annual income at or below $20,000,


:graybox: 61 percent have annual income at or below the federal poverty level.


:graybox: 50 percent have someone in their household that has asthma, emphysema, heart disease, or stroke, and


:graybox: 20 percent have someone who uses necessary medical equipment that requires electricity, most commonly nebulizers, oxygen machines, and other machines to provide assistance with breathing.
Wolfe told me that some choice the very poor make include heating their homes with candles, or with the stove. This is a fire hazard.


“When we look at this we really think the government clearly has a role in helping these low income families adjust these prices,” Wolfe said. “As I think about it, that's really what you'd expect from a decent government and that's what we should be doing."


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2564.shtml


TC


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
34. kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
35. Kick
TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
36. I have been trying...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Thank you so much for keeping this issue in the forefront!
I know it's a thankless task, and so very discouraging.

I appreciate those of you who stand side-by-side with those of us who are on the bottom of the ladder.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
37. Big K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
38. K&R
This is an issue that never gets enough attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkyisBlue Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
39. Good post.
We won't be getting any leadership on this issue from the current administration which is totally out of step with the real world (by choice). I find it appalling that our president has publicly stated that even children with no health insurance have access to medical care through visits to a hospital emergency room. He is an embarrassment to any American who cares about other people.

Poverty is such an important issue. I haven't read it myself yet, but I have heard that an excellent book dealing with the lives of the working poor is called "Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America", by Barbara Ehrenreich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC