2006-12-28 01:24:55 PM amaranthe

sod213: I got to wander around the ruins of Eloise when I was a little girl. My mother was touring them as research for a book, and I went with her. Very imposing, very spooky. Have you ever read its history, before it became what it was at the end? VERY interesting. :)

Got a copy of that book I can borrow? :) My grandfather worked there, but he died in 1980, so I can't ask him about it.

DROxINxTHExWIND: HotWingConspiracy
That's not a good point.

Yes it is.
=====================================

No.
It isn't.

Even money that this particular conversation degrades to "Neener neener neener!"

Pro Zack: And as for problems getting worse source please

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/16319373.htm

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/poverty20050919/

John Edwards outlines the problem fairly well himself.

LocalCynic
That being said, the big difference between vouchers and deseg was that the community lines that deseg and bussing were meant to blur were the constructs of redlining and discriminatory housing practices. Vouchers is just meant to undermine public schools.

Deseg was a decent idea in principle but it's inefficient and costly. The best way to integrate society is to encourage developers to offer multiple tiers of housing and to support neighborhood institutions like churches, schools, and businesses. Both deseg and vouchers fail to do any of this. Edward's plan at least takes this into account.

I see the point of destroying community schools, but in many places they are already destroyed. Through personal experience, I see the following wrong with failing schools in my area.

1. Focusing on college bound cirrculum. This is great and it needs to be in there, but not every farking kid is going to college, or needs to. You can make an honest living in construction, health care, and many other jobs that don't require a degree. Kids are getting the shaft because while they watch their family struggle to make ends meet, they are told they need more time before they are productive. Its bullshiat.

2. Families that don't care. This may be a stereotype, but it is true. Especically with bussing. School becomes a government sponsered daycare for their kids and the parents and kids simply don't give a flying fark about school and the opportunity that and education can present. This also goes in hand with the general stigma of wanting to be educated and the glorification of ignorance.

3. Government oversight. While some oversight is needed, too much value is placed on performance and standarized tests. From seeing first hand how these are done, it is pure bullshiat. They are just crap numbers to give the politician talking points. To much time is gone into teaching the tests and not giving kids real world skills they need to survive.

4. Bussing. This has totally destroyed many of the school systems around me. Putting a black kid next to a white kid might be admirable, but it really does nothing to further the education of either. So tons of money is spent on bussing costs, court costs and other associated costs that would be better spend in the farking classroom educating the kids.

So mabye this community voucher system could work. But I see many obstacles to overcome, starting with inflating real estate values. If there is a sudden influx of 'free' money into the market, it should drive up housing values. Middle class folks dump their houses at a proft and move up into a more desirable community that the government sponsered folks can not afford.

I don't like Edwards. Too smarmy, even for a politician.

Obama/Richardson '08.

My problem with wealth distribution statistics is that they ignore technology. Poor people can become overweight in this country.

Forget flat taxes and VATs. A universal Land Value Tax is the way to go.

/I'd include churches and non-profits in the "universal" part, since they use city/state/federal services as well, though the government could reimburse the for work they do in the community.
//Might also tack on a "viewshed tax," though lots of people are violently opposed to it.

LocalCynic
"Edwards should be parroting the GOP talking points - that poor people are lazy and brought it on themselves, and that we need to INCREASE poverty because by kicking people when they're down, we motivate them and others to work harder. Suck it, libs!"

quoted for truthiness

and remember, corporate welfare is a good thing.

WCHeadhunter: Taxes, to any business, are known simply as a "cost". All costs of doing business are passed on to the consumer in the form of what is called the "price".

i'm OK with that. Because from what I keep hearing from the uber-business-psuedo-freemarketers is that competition will work to keep prices low, regardless of costs. So, pile on the taxes. Hell, it will be an incentive for creativity, just like all laws are.

We may even get LOWER prices.

2006-12-28 01:28:58 PM Hang On Voltaire


Edwards is right about one thing. Katrina did show a lot about poor people in America......that they are fat.
========================================================

You can't find a good tofu sandwich for a buck but McDonald's has an entire dollar menu.


/see the thread from yesterday about the free healthy resturant

DROxINxTHExWIND: You can't find a good tofu sandwich for a buck but McDonald's has an entire dollar menu


I've yet to find a good tofu sandwich anywhere, but we've got a whole foods coming in nearby...maybe that'll change.

Rational Exuberance: Can you tell me why this is important? Seriously, beyond using something that doesn't boil down to base envy, why are relative differences in wealth significant? If the "poorest" people can afford necessities, and have a constantly rising standard of living, haven't we accomplished our goal? Now, if they can't afford to live, then I do believe government has a role to play. But, if this condition is satisfied (and I believe it largely is in the US), why is a disparity of wealth a problem to be solved?

That's too black and white. There have been times where distribution was more even, but not exactly fair. There was still a wealthy minority and a poor minority. Why is it a problem, because most people are at the point where they are working harder for less, while productivity and wealth continue to increase.

AreEmDashEffAre: Why not a system where students in PS's can chose to attend classes wherever they'd like, and the per student cost in the city or town in which they reside is paid by the town of residence to the town where the child attends school?

First, I think there is a value to local institutions. I realize that nowadays people are told to think globally not locally, but it's also important that people have some sense of civic pride.

Second, this isn't going to address the promise that "no child be left behind." A voucher program requires either a) an open lottery system, or b) a merit-based application process. Option b) would disproportionally benefit those who attend better schools and with more resources. It's a de facto tracking system that would force less privileged kids to lower tracks. Option a) creates divides within communities and tends to encourage a race to the bottom in poorer schools as kids flee from them. Both options are resource intensive and require that communities invest more heavily in infrastructure like buses and offer terribly long routes.

Finally, it seems like this proposal is just going to snowball. Schools in metropolitan areas (suburbs and some better city schools) tend to be better funded than schools in rural areas with small populations, lower incomes, and lower property levels. Why should those kids miss out on the pie? Your proposal would saddle more costs on the city and suburban schools if rural kids (or people from far across the state) would want to attend.

Under the current system, cities and towns are rewarded for poor school systems that they chose to underfund with municipal taxes, and are only punished when people get smart enough to this fact to emigrate away.

No, under the current system, certain localities CAN'T fund schools because most school funding comes from property taxes. This is the same tax base that other important services like fire, police, and utilities come from. Further, because school boards tend to be elected positions, politicians are more concerned about stupid disputes than educating kids.

If you start taking tax dollars out of municipal budgets and use it like tuition for surrounding (and now competing) public schools, you effectively create a scenario where local governments can be economically punished in the short term for not providing the demanded services of education.

So you'd prefer state and federal governments to do the local government's job for them? That's not competition, that's just middle management.

knobmaker: You know, I'd rather see stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, than to see what we have now, which is stealing from everyone and giving to the Iraqis Halliburton.

Fixed.

timmy_the_tooth

i'd say that the abuse of the poor is less than the abuse of the wealthy. that both forms of abuse exist and that we need to be focused on wealthy people/corporations that pay no taxes/get federal subsidies as much or more than the pennies we're spending on fraudsters.

Depends on the abuse, what are you referring to? A corporation is not a single person. More money goes into welfare from tax dollars that goes to corporate welfare.

In this day and age you have to go on SSI if you have a disability and that shiat is way hard to get on and not a lot of money. Maybe your uncle got on EA back in the pre 1996 era but I'm sure he'd find the current "welfare" system a whole lot less hospitable and far less agreeable than the past.

I know people on SSI, I know of people on SSI who have side jobs. The system is highly abused. There are people who have "fake" problems, like being tired and know how to milk the system. Things like that. They don't care about barely getting by because they know they can always get a handout from Uncle Sam.

timmy_the_tooth
"So, pile on the taxes. Hell, it will be an incentive for creativity, just like all laws are.
We may even get LOWER prices"

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Translation: You're being an asshat.

IXI Jim IXI

I refuse to believe that a good tofu sandwich even exists

there is a fine line that divides populism and extreme socialism.

/actually its a continent of a line
//that the democrats will cross and mess up this platform
///we need another FDR type democrat that has his head in the right place

DROxINxTHExWIND: You can't find a good tofu sandwich for a buck but McDonald's has an entire dollar menu.

being poor doesnt mean you can't eat healthy foods, just today on my lunch break I bought a single banana for 34 cents.

If he can end poverty within 30 years, I'll vote for him. The article sounds like he's gunning for the same issues that I care about in a future president.

fj: I refuse to believe that a good tofu sandwich even exists


Personally, I agree...but I didn't want to start another yelling match ;)

Rational Exuberance: But, if this condition is satisfied (and I believe it largely is in the US), why is a disparity of wealth a problem to be solved?

Basic human decency?

Headso

FlashLV: budget is $3.4 billion

!=

The Gates Foundation assets, $29.1 billion.

What?

Bills Gates foundation gives 30 billion to charity and the LARGEST give 10% of that.

Economic populisim will never work.

Especially with 2/3rds of the public saying the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Well I for one want to see Condi Rice enter the race.

Cute face, firm little titties, long skinny legs and a tight trim butt, what's not to like?

Looks like Olive Oyl with a suntan. . . . .

DROxINxTHExWIND
No.
It isn't.

Yes it is

/Im sure during Katrina the evacuees WISHED it were 1931
//at least they would have had soup.

Soup instead of voucher cards and real hot meals?

Equal access to higher education is a good start.

twilson2: Especially with 2/3rds of the public saying the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Yeah, but that poll doesn't mean much. You ask 90% of the people who answer that question which direction they're talking about, they'll probably say "down"

mvfreeman

You mean the policies that enabled the US to keep Democracy

Unless somebody planned on burning the constitution this country was going to stay a democracy despite whatever policies a president enacted.

Actually the US is a representative republic, but don't let accuracy get in the way of a good argument.

smeegle
Equal access to higher education is a good start.

That is the best and cheapest way.

smeegle: Equal access to higher education is a good start.

Equal in what sense? Right now, we have equality of access in the sense that the highest performers on standardized tests are guaranteed access.

Well I for one want to see Condi Rice enter the race.

Cute face, firm little titties, long skinny legs and a tight trim butt, what's not to like?

She looks too much like James Brown!

2006-12-28 01:28:11 PM WCHeadhunter


DROxINxTHExWIND
"Second, you've totally failed to address the poverty that is institutionalized. There are people who have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

You mean guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, right? Yeah, I can see your point.
===================================================

Wait. Dude, what? You lost me. Were we discussing poverty or race. I know a lot of bigots like to use the terms poor and Black interchangeably and I'm trying to figure out if you're one of those guys.
Actually, I was reffering to the prison industry that gets paid per poor, disenfranchised prisoner; corporations who can keep wages low by assuring there is always a pool of available workers...you know, stuff like that.

As far as Sharpton and Jackson go, they are a lot less reprehensible than the issues that they fight against. I'm always curious why people like you don't focus your anger towards them at the bigotry and unfairness that gave them a pulpit in the first place. It's a win, win. You're rid of Sharpton and we're rid of you... I mean, bigots.

Molavian: ?

I would have preferred they were giving them soup, too.

And maybe a salad...

Zack
strangely, the people who give the most to charity are red staters(sorry, no clicky no poppy)

http://www.dataplace.org/map/index.html?cid=27865&centerX=-10667400.4321238&ce nterY=4009247.42007624&zoomlevel=13

First off, this graph shows "Avg. amt. of charitable deduct. for ret. with inc. under $25,000"
AND...


and the folks that receive the most public assistance are blue staters...
http://www.dataplace.org/map/index.html?cid=21473&centerX=-10667400.4321238&ce nterY=4009247.42007624&zoomlevel=13

That's just a flat number. It's not a percentage or anything.

So it's useless.

That's like saying New York City sucks because it has 100 more homeless people than East Bumblefark, Idaho.

Yeah america is too fat and happy to ever vote for economic populisism.

Thats why the conservatives did so good in 2006.

GodsTumor: She looks too much like James Brown!

But these days, she's much more mobile.

All Apologies: Rational Exuberance: But, if this condition is satisfied (and I believe it largely is in the US), why is a disparity of wealth a problem to be solved?

Basic human decency?

WTF does that mean? I don't want people living out of dumpsters; if people are having trouble making enough money to live then the government can help them out (the EITC does this) by providing them funds. You keep using words like "fair" and "decent", but I don't understand your definition. It seems decent to me that I want the poorer people to be helped out without causing an undue burden upon those that are more successful.

There's not a way that I see to dance around this one. Inequality of wealth isn't a problem to be solved unless the poor are is such poverty that they can't afford to live. Relative differences in wealth mean nothing; the only thing that is relevant is the absolute amount. On this basis, the poor are pretty well off (although some improvements need to be made).

DROxINxTHExWIND: You all sure have a lot of simple solutions to solving the poverty problem. First, MOST people who ingest illegal substances are not doing so ONLY because of their addiction. Most people who do drugs do it because THEY LIKE TOO. There is no amount of money that you can put into a treatment program that will change that.

I don't care what drugs people want to do. But if they become a burden on society or criminal, then we have to look to treatment programs for the solution.

Second, you've totally failed to address the poverty that is institutionalized. There are people who have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

Give me an example of what you are talking about.

whidbey: I'm taking issue with the unfounded statement that the poor don't want job training.

The truth is that there isn't any decent program, even here in Washington.

True.

In order to stave off being a poor bastard, you have to make a decent wage. I've been in the unemployment places here, and even with their fancy computer system, the jobs suck.

Yeah, the system we have doesn't really help.

"Job retraining" to me is teaching someone how to make 30-60K annually, not farting around with minimum wage or anything below $15 an hour.

Some people might only be capable of doing things below $15 an hour. But it beats unemployment, right?

I believe job training IS the key. But I'm skeptical that people in charge really want inner cities to rise above poverty.

We'll always have poverty, but we should at least give people a path out of poverty should they choose to take it.

OK, then why isn't the subject of job training #1?

I don't know. It is a real priority to me, though.

Like I said, there's obviously an attitude that a certain percentage of the population be kept poor to be used for low-income labor.

We need low-income and unskilled laborers though. That is unless we are going to open our doors to immigrants who are willing to do that work.

IXI Jim IXI: Here's your tiara and bouquet...you've done won the thread. :D

Finally ;p

BlindMan
If the economy was the issue W. would defeat any dem in a landslide because it's been extremely strong for years now, without the benefit of the internet crazies that infected it during the Clinton years.

And the real estate boom has NOTHING to do with today's strong economy?

FlashLV: Bills Gates foundation gives 30 billion to charity and the LARGEST give 10% of that.


my point is a yearly budget is not the same as total assets, that was all.

What I find even more of a concern is the disparity in intelligence as demonstrated in the microcosm of Farkistan.
Too many binary thinkers not enough people who look at the broader aspect of an issue.
Trimming the gap between the wealthy and impoverished isn't about a Robin Hood act, it's about opening doors of opportunitty to more people.
..and as a reminder to those of you who may claim to be Christians while simultaneously scoffing at and belittling the poor; I believe it was your Christ himself that said "He who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me."
/
rant over-carry on

All Apologies What addresses the fact that while there is unlimited wealth, it tends to be hoarded by a few?

It's very simple, like others have been telling you. Money goes where it is appreciated.

yep, acting Christian won't get you votes. Pretending you're Christian and running AGAINST the poor, that's a vote-getting platform!

Sloth_DC:

Equal in what sense? Right now, we have equality of access in the sense that the highest performers on standardized tests are guaranteed access.

who in the united states do you know that wants to get a college education and can't get one? they may not be able to attend the school they want to attend but anybody can get a college degree in the united states if they want one and work towards it.

Did someone say this yet?

Guliani/McCain '08

smeegle: I believe it was your Christ himself that said "He who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me."

Yeah, but he said that when he was hungry and homeless ;)