http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

"Steve B" wrote in message news:LVVbq.3531


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

says: "Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and found
these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in the way
of real researchers. About what I would expect from a partisan think tank.
Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking at their alleged data and
drawing different conclusions.

Let's play a game: *My* research shows that the Heritage Foundations is
dedicated to fomenting class warfare and its conclusions are reached before
the alleged research is done. Of course, like them, I can't *show* you the
actual details of my research. Just take my word for it because I once
worked for a think tank, too. Or better yet, my unnamed sources report
that this is a deliberate propaganda campaign designed to advance
conservative interests. See how easy it is to play BS researcher/reporter?
Sheesh. Regrettably, some people will believe anything that appears in
print without asking a single tough question.

FWIW, the Heritage Foundation is hardly an unbiased source for "news" of
this natu

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational
institution-a think tank-whose mission is to formulate and promote
conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise,
limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a
strong national defense.

If a researcher refuses to reveal source data or methodology and doesn't
even bother to submit their work for peer review then you can pretty much
assume the data's been cooked with an agenda in mind. The Heritage
Foundation has been cooking data to order for their wealthy patrons since
they day they crawled out of the ground:

http://www.slate.com/id/2122093/

Sex and Significance - How the Heritage Foundation cooked the books on
virginity . . . It's an argument about math, not sex. And mathematically,
the Heritage paper comes up short . . . That adolescents who took virginity
pledges might be less likely to report STD symptoms is a possibility Rector
and Johnson don't seem to consider; but they should. When it comes to sex,
people often lie. Urine samples don't.

Heritage often takes straightforward facts and jumbles them up so their
"unusual" conclusions *seem* to be supported by the facts. Closer analysis
almost always finds huge flaws in their claims which is probably why they
haven't said precisely how they got their results. They've been embarrassed
too many times before by other pointing out their numerous flawed
assumptions.

http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/18/he...rican-poverty/

Has some wonderful comments about Heritage's bull**** science:

"The idea that someone who probably never is, was or will be poor is a
leading national authority always makes me giggle."

"looking at what kind of appliances people have is not the best way to
figure out who is poor."

"Yes, having an Xbox is the same as having a trust fund or an offshore tax
shelter."

"The well to do, take from these propaganda pieces the belief that poverty
is something that people bring upon themselves and the rich are rich by
virtue of their sound judgement."

"To be worthy of charity you must be . . . in such plight as to move a
sociopath to pity, which would not apply to someone who has electricity and
a TV, or who has eaten in the last week."

"Air conditioner, tv, xbox are all a one time expense, under $100 or $200.
Rent, mortgage, food are relentless and recurring and often rising in cost
when wages have dropped, disappeared, or gone stagnant."

"How dare the poor take advantage of decades old innovations that can be
bought at second-hand retailers for nearly nothing! It is shameful that they
would dare to try taking advantage of technologies the rest of us take for
granted and couldn't imagine living without. Obviously the only "true" poor
are living in tents and cooking road-kill over an open fire."

"I honestly think Congress ought to be required to subsist on median income
for their district. It'd give them an incentive to improve the plight of
people on the bottom. I know it will never happen but still I wish some of
them could be required to run the gauntlet that someone who grows up poor
does for at least a year. Learn how it feels to scrounge for change in your
car to pay a co pay for a kid with an ear infection and dread having to take
a whole day off without pay to care for them."

"Has the Heritage Foundation found a some way to prepare an X-Box for
dinner? No. Prices for computers and video games are at record lows because
of the economic crash. You cannot eat computers/video games."

"The difference between the poor and the middle class has everything to do
with security-freedom from destitution. Not whether or not you can buy a $50
Xbox, $100 TV, and $20 microwave. Cheap crap has little or no bearing on
what constitutes income security."

"We all have an obligation to the society because we all benefit from it."

"People are seeing right through the whole poor people have too much thing.
Particularly when they know that trillions went to people who then paid
themselves million dollar bonuses and are now whining about being taxed on
it."

"getting tax rates back to where they were in say the 1970's or even under
Reagan isn't "taxing the rich to death." There were plenty of rich folks in
those decades as well. And they didn't die due to high tax rates. Whereas
45,000 Americans ACTUALLY DIE from a lack of health care every year"

"if we tax the rich then they'll leave for other countries. Well, I wish we
would so they'd leave already. They've made an utter mess here and it's
impossible to clean up while they're still here making a mess"

"West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the Union. And yet, judging
by the amount of natural resource wealth in that state in the form of coal,
it should be one of the richest. How did this end result happen?"

""game consoles", which could be anything from the original pong to the
latest xbox"

================================================== =======

No data + no methodology = Zero credibility. These guys give *real* think
tanks like the nation's FFRDC's (Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers) a bad name.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/

Sadly, the same is true of a number of liberal "stink tanks." Get some
wealthy donors to ante up a stake, cull together a bunch of academics or
academic wannabees for sale and give them a title of "research fellow."
Make the particularly odious data distorters "senior fellows."

Do I think that every bit of welfare paid out, corporate or social, needs to
be regularly scrutinized for cheats? Yes. The Republican proposed solution
of cutting the federal workforce is only going to make cheating even more
widespread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/bu...f-executives-t
ops-the-company-tax-burden.html

At least 25 top United States companies paid more to their chief
executives in 2010 than they did to the federal government in taxes,
according to a study released on Wednesday . . . The report found, however,
that many of the nation's largest and highly profitable companies paid far
less than the statutory rate. Verizon, which earned $11.9 billion in pretax
United States profits, received a federal tax refund of $705 million. The
company's chairman, Ivan Seidenberg, meanwhile, received $18.1 million in
compensation. The online retailer eBay reported pretax profits of $848
million and received a $113 million federal refund. John Donahoe, eBay's
chief executive, collected a compensation package worth $12.4 million, the
study said.

If true, there is something *really* wrong with this picture.

However, the Institute for Policy Studies is a progressive "stink tank" so
they, too, have an obvious agenda that calls into question their
impartiality and truthfulness.

http://www.ips-dc.org/blog/ivan_seid...ate_tax_dodger

I'm guessing that it's far easier to verify IPS's claims than those of the
Heritage folks, but I am not inclined to trust either of them just because
they are clearly partisan. IPS didn't report Seidenberg's title correctly
and the NY Times caught a mistake in their math. To their credit, they
apparently did hand over the data for those errors to be found, so I tend to
trust them slightly more than Heritage. But only slightly.

A true think tank should be free of "leanings" one way or another.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message news:LVVbq.3531


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

says: "Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and
found these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in
the way of real researchers. About what I would expect from a
partisan think tank. Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking at
their alleged data and drawing different conclusions.


Had you read the report itself with a bit of diligence you would have found
references to the following source material:

US Dept of Commerce, "American Housing Survey for the United States"
US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Housing
Characteristics"
United Nations Center for Human Settlements "The Housing Indicators Program"
US Dept of Energy, "Housing Statistics in the European Union"
USDA Economic Research Service, "Household Food Security in the US"
US Bureau of the Census, "Current Population Survey"
USDA "Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States"
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "Worldwide Magnitude of
Protien-Energy Malnutrition"
US Bureau of the Census, "Survey of Income and Program Participation"

But, I understand that when attacking the message is inconvenient, attacking
the messenger is all that's left.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message news:LVVbq.3531


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

says: "Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and found
these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in the
way
of real researchers. About what I would expect from a partisan think
tank.
Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking at their alleged data and
drawing different conclusions.

Let's play a game: *My* research shows that the Heritage Foundations is
dedicated to fomenting class warfare and its conclusions are reached
before
the alleged research is done. Of course, like them, I can't *show* you
the
actual details of my research. Just take my word for it because I once
worked for a think tank, too. Or better yet, my unnamed sources report
that this is a deliberate propaganda campaign designed to advance
conservative interests. See how easy it is to play BS
researcher/reporter?
Sheesh. Regrettably, some people will believe anything that appears in
print without asking a single tough question.

FWIW, the Heritage Foundation is hardly an unbiased source for "news" of
this natu

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational
institution-a think tank-whose mission is to formulate and promote
conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise,
limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a
strong national defense.

If a researcher refuses to reveal source data or methodology and doesn't
even bother to submit their work for peer review then you can pretty much
assume the data's been cooked with an agenda in mind. The Heritage
Foundation has been cooking data to order for their wealthy patrons since
they day they crawled out of the ground:

http://www.slate.com/id/2122093/

Sex and Significance - How the Heritage Foundation cooked the books on
virginity . . . It's an argument about math, not sex. And mathematically,
the Heritage paper comes up short . . . That adolescents who took
virginity
pledges might be less likely to report STD symptoms is a possibility
Rector
and Johnson don't seem to consider; but they should. When it comes to sex,
people often lie. Urine samples don't.

Heritage often takes straightforward facts and jumbles them up so their
"unusual" conclusions *seem* to be supported by the facts. Closer
analysis
almost always finds huge flaws in their claims which is probably why they
haven't said precisely how they got their results. They've been
embarrassed
too many times before by other pointing out their numerous flawed
assumptions.

http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/18/he...rican-poverty/

Has some wonderful comments about Heritage's bull**** science:

"The idea that someone who probably never is, was or will be poor is a
leading national authority always makes me giggle."

"looking at what kind of appliances people have is not the best way to
figure out who is poor."

"Yes, having an Xbox is the same as having a trust fund or an offshore tax
shelter."

"The well to do, take from these propaganda pieces the belief that poverty
is something that people bring upon themselves and the rich are rich by
virtue of their sound judgement."

"To be worthy of charity you must be . . . in such plight as to move a
sociopath to pity, which would not apply to someone who has electricity
and
a TV, or who has eaten in the last week."

"Air conditioner, tv, xbox are all a one time expense, under $100 or $200.
Rent, mortgage, food are relentless and recurring and often rising in cost
when wages have dropped, disappeared, or gone stagnant."

"How dare the poor take advantage of decades old innovations that can be
bought at second-hand retailers for nearly nothing! It is shameful that
they
would dare to try taking advantage of technologies the rest of us take
for
granted and couldn't imagine living without. Obviously the only "true"
poor
are living in tents and cooking road-kill over an open fire."

"I honestly think Congress ought to be required to subsist on median
income
for their district. It'd give them an incentive to improve the plight of
people on the bottom. I know it will never happen but still I wish some of
them could be required to run the gauntlet that someone who grows up poor
does for at least a year. Learn how it feels to scrounge for change in
your
car to pay a co pay for a kid with an ear infection and dread having to
take
a whole day off without pay to care for them."

"Has the Heritage Foundation found a some way to prepare an X-Box for
dinner? No. Prices for computers and video games are at record lows
because
of the economic crash. You cannot eat computers/video games."

"The difference between the poor and the middle class has everything to do
with security-freedom from destitution. Not whether or not you can buy a
$50
Xbox, $100 TV, and $20 microwave. Cheap crap has little or no bearing on
what constitutes income security."

"We all have an obligation to the society because we all benefit from it."

"People are seeing right through the whole poor people have too much
thing.
Particularly when they know that trillions went to people who then paid
themselves million dollar bonuses and are now whining about being taxed on
it."

"getting tax rates back to where they were in say the 1970's or even under
Reagan isn't "taxing the rich to death." There were plenty of rich folks
in
those decades as well. And they didn't die due to high tax rates. Whereas
45,000 Americans ACTUALLY DIE from a lack of health care every year"

"if we tax the rich then they'll leave for other countries. Well, I wish
we
would so they'd leave already. They've made an utter mess here and it's
impossible to clean up while they're still here making a mess"

"West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the Union. And yet, judging
by the amount of natural resource wealth in that state in the form of
coal,
it should be one of the richest. How did this end result happen?"

""game consoles", which could be anything from the original pong to the
latest xbox"

================================================== =======

No data + no methodology = Zero credibility. These guys give *real* think
tanks like the nation's FFRDC's (Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers) a bad name.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/

Sadly, the same is true of a number of liberal "stink tanks." Get some
wealthy donors to ante up a stake, cull together a bunch of academics or
academic wannabees for sale and give them a title of "research fellow."
Make the particularly odious data distorters "senior fellows."

Do I think that every bit of welfare paid out, corporate or social, needs
to
be regularly scrutinized for cheats? Yes. The Republican proposed
solution
of cutting the federal workforce is only going to make cheating even more
widespread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/bu...f-executives-t
ops-the-company-tax-burden.html

At least 25 top United States companies paid more to their chief
executives in 2010 than they did to the federal government in taxes,
according to a study released on Wednesday . . . The report found,
however,
that many of the nation's largest and highly profitable companies paid far
less than the statutory rate. Verizon, which earned $11.9 billion in
pretax
United States profits, received a federal tax refund of $705 million. The
company's chairman, Ivan Seidenberg, meanwhile, received $18.1 million in
compensation. The online retailer eBay reported pretax profits of $848
million and received a $113 million federal refund. John Donahoe, eBay's
chief executive, collected a compensation package worth $12.4 million, the
study said.

If true, there is something *really* wrong with this picture.

However, the Institute for Policy Studies is a progressive "stink tank" so
they, too, have an obvious agenda that calls into question their
impartiality and truthfulness.

http://www.ips-dc.org/blog/ivan_seid...ate_tax_dodger

I'm guessing that it's far easier to verify IPS's claims than those of the
Heritage folks, but I am not inclined to trust either of them just because
they are clearly partisan. IPS didn't report Seidenberg's title correctly
and the NY Times caught a mistake in their math. To their credit, they
apparently did hand over the data for those errors to be found, so I tend
to
trust them slightly more than Heritage. But only slightly.

A true think tank should be free of "leanings" one way or another.

--
Bobby G.

Everyone, even the perfect liberals, have their own agenda.

Steve

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message news:LVVbq.3531


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

says: "Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and
found these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in
the way of real researchers. About what I would expect from a
partisan think tank. Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking at
their alleged data and drawing different conclusions.


Had you read the report itself with a bit of diligence you would have
found references to the following source material:

US Dept of Commerce, "American Housing Survey for the United States"
US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Housing
Characteristics"
United Nations Center for Human Settlements "The Housing Indicators
Program"
US Dept of Energy, "Housing Statistics in the European Union"
USDA Economic Research Service, "Household Food Security in the US"
US Bureau of the Census, "Current Population Survey"
USDA "Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States"
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "Worldwide Magnitude of
Protien-Energy Malnutrition"
US Bureau of the Census, "Survey of Income and Program Participation"

But, I understand that when attacking the message is inconvenient,
attacking the messenger is all that's left.

Kudos, sir. I took it as truth when I noticed that so many credible
agencies took part. Also, it was noted, but not stated in this article that
a percentage near 50% owned their own homes.

Steve

On Sep 14, 10:47*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Robert Green wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message news:LVVbq.3531

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta....

says: *"Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and
found these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in
the way of real researchers. *About what I would expect from a
partisan think tank. Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking at
their alleged data and drawing different conclusions.

Had you read the report itself with a bit of diligence you would have
found references to the following source material:

US Dept of Commerce, "American Housing Survey for the United States"
US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Housing
Characteristics"
United Nations Center for Human Settlements "The Housing Indicators
Program"
US Dept of Energy, "Housing Statistics in the European Union"
USDA Economic Research Service, "Household Food Security in the US"
US Bureau of the Census, "Current Population Survey"
USDA "Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States"
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "Worldwide Magnitude of
Protien-Energy Malnutrition"
US Bureau of the Census, "Survey of Income and Program Participation"

But, I understand that when attacking the message is inconvenient,
attacking the messenger is all that's left.

Kudos, sir. *I took it as truth when I noticed that so many credible
agencies took part. *Also, it was noted, but not stated in this article that
a percentage near 50% owned their own homes.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Not only is he attacking the messenger, but I can't
help but laugh at the silly comments he posted"



"The idea that someone who probably never is, was or will be poor is
a
leading national authority always makes me giggle."

So apparently unless you're a researcher who happens to
be poor, your findings are meaningless. Makes sense. We
should immediately dismiss research on cancer too,
unless the researcher has cancer.



"looking at what kind of appliances people have is not the best way
to
figure out who is poor."

Maybe not the best way, nor did anyone say that it was. But it is
one way to look at what people who are living in poverty have so
it can be compared to what people living in say India in poverty
have.



"Yes, having an Xbox is the same as having a trust fund or an offshore
tax
shelter."

Another strawman.



"The well to do, take from these propaganda pieces the belief that
poverty
is something that people bring upon themselves and the rich are rich
by
virtue of their sound judgement."

In most cases poverty is something that people bring on by themselves.
Examples being dropping out of school in the 10th grade, getting
pregnant at 16, etc. There are definitely a significant number who
wind up there through no fault of their own, but IMO, it's the
minority.
And the group is not static. You can lift yourself out of poverty in
most cases if you choose to do so.




"To be worthy of charity you must be . . . in such plight as to move
a
sociopath to pity, which would not apply to someone who has
electricity and
a TV, or who has eaten in the last week."


"Air conditioner, tv, xbox are all a one time expense, under $100 or
$200.
Rent, mortgage, food are relentless and recurring and often rising in
cost
when wages have dropped, disappeared, or gone stagnant."

They may be a one time expense, but they do define your
standard of living.



"How dare the poor take advantage of decades old innovations that can
be
bought at second-hand retailers for nearly nothing! It is shameful
that they
would dare to try taking advantage of technologies the rest of us
take for
granted and couldn't imagine living without. Obviously the only "true"
poor
are living in tents and cooking road-kill over an open fire."


No one said any such thing.




"I honestly think Congress ought to be required to subsist on median
income
for their district. It'd give them an incentive to improve the plight
of
people on the bottom. I know it will never happen but still I wish
some of
them could be required to run the gauntlet that someone who grows up
poor
does for at least a year. Learn how it feels to scrounge for change in
your
car to pay a co pay for a kid with an ear infection and dread having
to take
a whole day off without pay to care for them."

No one forced them to have kids that they could not support. The
result
is we all pay for their irresponsibility.



"Has the Heritage Foundation found a some way to prepare an X-Box for
dinner? No. Prices for computers and video games are at record lows
because
of the economic crash. You cannot eat computers/video games."

No, but if they had not spent the $200 on an X-Box, they could
have used it for food. Also, an X-Box isn't a one time expense
either. You do typically continue to buy games for it and they
aren't cheap either. Think a person in poverty in India has one?




"The difference between the poor and the middle class has everything
to do
with security-freedom from destitution. Not whether or not you can buy
a $50
Xbox, $100 TV, and $20 microwave. Cheap crap has little or no bearing
on
what constitutes income security."

I'd say the difference between the poor and the middle class, in
most cases is that the middle class graduated at least high school,
worked hard and did not have 6 kids they couldn't support.


"We all have an obligation to the society because we all benefit from
it."

What benefit did I get from the trillions that have been spent on
the war on poverty? And why 4 decades later is the poverty rate
exactly the same despite all the programs we have now that
we did not have in the 60's that were supposed to greatly reduce
poverty?


"People are seeing right through the whole poor people have too much
thing.
Particularly when they know that trillions went to people who then
paid
themselves million dollar bonuses and are now whining about being
taxed on
it."

I don't see anyone claiming the poor have too much. All the research
did was show what in fact they do have. As for trillions that went to
million dollar bonuses, you must be talking about Obama's solar
energy handouts. So far, we know trillions in govt loans went to
companies that made large donations to Obama and the Dems.
I can't wait to see what the FBI figures out with Solyndra, which
got $500mil and about a year later they are bankrupt. Should
be an interesting campaign topic.




"getting tax rates back to where they were in say the 1970's or even
under
Reagan isn't "taxing the rich to death." There were plenty of rich
folks in
those decades as well. And they didn't die due to high tax rates.
Whereas
45,000 Americans ACTUALLY DIE from a lack of health care every year"

Good to see you want income tax rates reduced to 28%, which
is what the top rate was under Reagan.



"if we tax the rich then they'll leave for other countries. Well, I
wish we
would so they'd leave already. They've made an utter mess here and
it's
impossible to clean up while they're still here making a mess"


Typical. Who do you think creates jobs?


"West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the Union. And yet,
judging
by the amount of natural resource wealth in that state in the form of
coal,
it should be one of the richest. How did this end result happen?"

Maybe because the poor folks don't own the mines? But
certainly those mines have given a lot of decent paying jobs
that support a lifestyle well above the poverty line.

On 9/13/2011 11:17 PM, Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaS...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA&feature=related

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:17:56 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html


What's the point of this article?
Poor people have a couple thousand dollars of possessions, counting
cars. Maybe less, depending on whether they scrounge well.
They can come up with 50 bucks a month to get cable TV.
So what?
I'd guess they have to pay their electric and gas bills too.
Do they have insurance for their cars?
House insurance if they have one?
Medical insurance, or do they go to the E-room?
How many are "working poor?"

I always figure it's their toys - especially cable TV - that keeps
poor people in the U.S. from *really* realizing they are poor.
Keeps them just busy enough not to dwell on the fact they are poor.
The poor of other cultures handle it their own way, not needing
"material" goods to entertain them.
Irish, Poles and Russians socialize and drink a lot.
Much more alcoholism I think. Not sure though.
My wife is originally from Poland and I hear about alcoholics all the
time.

But these are all mechanisms to keep the poor from rioting or turning
to crime because of their condition.
If it ever got to where the poor couldn't afford cable TV, the
government and Wall Street would provide them free cable.
Maintain the status quo.

I don't even know any poor people.
Steve just mentioned somebody who is poor and was looking for a place
to live.
Wonder is she has an Xbox.

--Vic

Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?

It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?

On Sep 14, 6:57*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:17:56 -0700, "Steve B"

wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta...

What's the point of this article?
Poor people have a couple thousand dollars of possessions, counting
cars. *Maybe less, depending on whether they scrounge well.
They can come up with 50 bucks a month to get cable TV.
So what?
I'd guess they have to pay their electric and gas bills too.
Do they have insurance for their cars?
House insurance if they have one?
Medical insurance, or do they go to the E-room?
How many are "working poor?"

I always figure it's their toys - especially cable TV - that keeps
poor people in the U.S. from *really* realizing they are poor.
Keeps them just busy enough not to dwell on the fact they are poor.
The poor of other cultures handle it their own way, not needing
"material" goods to entertain them.
Irish, Poles and Russians socialize and drink a lot.
Much more alcoholism I think. *Not sure though.
My wife is originally from Poland and I hear about alcoholics all the
time.

But these are all mechanisms to keep the poor from rioting or turning
to crime because of their condition.
If it ever got to where the poor couldn't afford cable TV, the
government and Wall Street would provide them free cable.
Maintain the status quo.

I don't even know any poor people.
Steve just mentioned somebody who is poor and was looking for a place
to live.
Wonder is she has an Xbox.

--Vic

Prior to X box, religion was the opiate of the masses.
Maybe still is in America.

On Sep 14, 6:57*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:17:56 -0700, "Steve B"

wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta...

What's the point of this article?
Poor people have a couple thousand dollars of possessions, counting
cars. *Maybe less, depending on whether they scrounge well.
They can come up with 50 bucks a month to get cable TV.
So what?
I'd guess they have to pay their electric and gas bills too.
Do they have insurance for their cars?
House insurance if they have one?
Medical insurance, or do they go to the E-room?
How many are "working poor?"

I always figure it's their toys - especially cable TV - that keeps
poor people in the U.S. from *really* realizing they are poor.
Keeps them just busy enough not to dwell on the fact they are poor.
The poor of other cultures handle it their own way, not needing
"material" goods to entertain them.
Irish, Poles and Russians socialize and drink a lot.
Much more alcoholism I think. *Not sure though.
My wife is originally from Poland and I hear about alcoholics all the
time.

But these are all mechanisms to keep the poor from rioting or turning
to crime because of their condition.
If it ever got to where the poor couldn't afford cable TV, the
government and Wall Street would provide them free cable.
Maintain the status quo.

I don't even know any poor people.
Steve just mentioned somebody who is poor and was looking for a place
to live.
Wonder is she has an Xbox.

--Vic

You have to go to third world countries to see the really poor.
Here's a place I stayed a couple of years back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Rosa,_Bolivia

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:00:59 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?

It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?


Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.
So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!
I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.
But the answer to that is jobs.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.
Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.
So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.
Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?
The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.

--Vic

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:07:44 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



You have to go to third world countries to see the really poor.
Here's a place I stayed a couple of years back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Rosa,_Bolivia

You don't have to go there.
Watch it on cable TV!
Those people in Bolivia might be happy.
Doubt that's true in Somalia.
Poorest place I ever went to was Bizerte, Tunisia, back in '64.
Still donkeys all over, no cars.
After that, the "farm" in the Ozarks near Doniphan, Missouri where my
ma grew up.
Poor is all relative anyway.
I think I could easily survive being poor.
Until I died.
Worst thing about being poor is you have to be around poor people.

--Vic

In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...nk-tank-says-m
ost.html

This is from Forbes: http://tinyurl.com/63texnw

The basic thrust of the article is we (U.S.) don't measure poverty
uniformly over time.

On Sep 14, 3:46*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:00:59 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta....

Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?

It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?

Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.
So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!
I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.
But the answer to that is jobs.

Another myth easily busted. The poverty rate today is just slightly
higher than it was before. It's varied from about 12% to 15% over
the last 40 years through boom or bust. It's also just about where
it was before Johnson declared war on poverty and the govt spent
trillions on welfare over the next 40 years. So, if the economy
were at full employment, instead of 15% you'd have 13%. Better?
Yes. But the answer to poverty? No way.



The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.
Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.


You need to look at the other side of the equation. Today that
family living in poverty can buy an air conditioner for $100. If
it and all the other cheap things that can be bought from abroad
cost twice that because we erect trade barriers, are they going
to be better off or worse off?

Also, I think everyone pretty much agrees that one thing that
made the Great Depression worse was passing trade barriers
trying to do exactly what you propose.



So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.

Poverty went from 13% to 15% from this recession. Clearly,
linking the vast majority of poverty to the availability of jobs
is nonsense.



Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?
The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.

--Vic

I'd be interested in seeing data on how many Walmart employees are on
food stamps and Medicaid. You have it? It really doesn't matter, as
there will always be people on govt programs working part-time in
minimum wage jobs for one reason or another.

BTW, since you're so ****ed off about jobs, what about what Obama
is doing to Boeing? Unlike the simple research article that has your
shorts in a knot, which really affects nothing,
the Obama administration is doing everything it can
to block Boeing from opening it's plant in SC to build parts for the
new 787. They are doing it because a union in WA state claims
Boeing built the $1 bil plant there to retaliate for a strike years
ago.
Nice job, no? Screw around not only with the jobs in SC, but also
those of the entire 787 program throughout this country and the world.
Then Obama complains when companies like Boeing move jobs
overseas.

wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:42:19 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Green wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:LVVbq.3531


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

says: "Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and
found these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in
the way of real researchers. About what I would expect from a
partisan think tank. Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking
at their alleged data and drawing different conclusions.


Had you read the report itself with a bit of diligence you would
have found references to the following source material:

US Dept of Commerce, "American Housing Survey for the United States"
US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Housing
Characteristics"
United Nations Center for Human Settlements "The Housing Indicators
Program" US Dept of Energy, "Housing Statistics in the European
Union"
USDA Economic Research Service, "Household Food Security in the US"
US Bureau of the Census, "Current Population Survey"
USDA "Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States"
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "Worldwide Magnitude of
Protien-Energy Malnutrition"
US Bureau of the Census, "Survey of Income and Program Participation"

But, I understand that when attacking the message is inconvenient,
attacking the messenger is all that's left.


The US has a totally different definition of "poor" than the rest of
the world.

Yep, and they will always be with us because the definition is the "lowest
quintile".

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

stuff snipped

This hubbub reminds me of how the Communists in 1939(?) banned the overtly
socialist film "The Grapes of Wrath" starring Henry Fonda (a must see for
history buffs). While it hewed more closely to Lenin than Lincoln, the film
depicted the "Okies" - the Joad Family - and their eviction by the bank from
their family farm and tragic trek westward. It showed all the evils of
Capitalism and the heroic struggle of the farmer. It showed the government
"saving" them in the end. So why was it banned? Because it showed the
Joads moving westward in a broken down, overloaded, ballooned tired jalopy.
The Russians rejected it because the test audience started muttering: "In
America, even poor have cars!"

The accumulation by purchase, charity, dumpster diving, etc. of a class of
equipment whose value depends so much on its unspecified manufacture date
isn't a poverty indicator. We don't know that, we don't know the veracity
of the self-reported data and we don't know what data they analyzed and by
what methodologies. This is pure, tasty propaganda with a side of baloney.
National expert? Uh-huh.

It bothers me too much not to have the film date correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath_(film)

says:

In a film review written for Time magazine by its editor Whittaker
Chambers, an outspoken opponent of communism, he separated his views of
Steinbeck's novel from Ford's film, which he liked. Chambers wrote, "But
people who go to pictures for the sake of seeing pictures will see a great
one. For The Grapes of Wrath is possibly the best picture ever made from a
so-so book . . . It is the saga of an authentic U.S. farming family who lose
their land. They wander, they suffer, but they endure. They are never quite
defeated, and their survival is itself a triumph."

The film premiered in New York City on January 24, 1940, and Los Angeles on
January 27, 1940. The wide release date in the United States was March 15,
1940.

One year off. Maybe it was the book that came out in 1939 or it was made in
1939.
I got it for 99 cents at the local CD/DVD exchange.

--
Bobby G.

checkout

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news...y_rate_income/


I think there might be some ways to avoid poverty based on the data in
this article.

cheers
Bob

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote:


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

says: "Without specifying exact information sources, The Heritage
Foundation said a senior researcher reviewed government reports and
found these results"

If they can't (or won't) specify their sources, they're not much in
the way of real researchers. About what I would expect from a
partisan think tank. Clearly they don't want anyone *else* looking at
their alleged data and drawing different conclusions.


Had you read the report itself with a bit of diligence you would have
found
references to the following source material:

Am I *not* to believe the reporter who said it came without sources on just
that one point? Be realistic. I commented on what Steve's URL led to and
that's what they said. Right off the bat, I find a lot of interesting
questions about how video consoles relate to some of the "references"
mentioned:

US Dept of Energy, "Housing Statistics in the European Union"
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "Worldwide Magnitude of
Protien-Energy Malnutrition"

I worry right off the bat when they can't even spell "protein" correctly,
but hell, typos happen.

But, I understand that when attacking the message is inconvenient,
attacking
the messenger is all that's left.

What an interesting attack on me! g The messenger in this case is a
partisan propaganda group that in many previous cases has perverted the
scientific method to justify a conclusion formed before the research is
performed. I will be happy to examine their methodology, and sources.
Heritage, as my reference URL's demonstrated,

http://www.slate.com/id/2122093/

has cooked the books before and been caught red-handed. When prior evidence
is inconvenient, you seem to not address it. Who's kidding whom? (-:

What I find remarkably amusing is that they allege all this "data" is culled
from various Federal government sources. What makes the government that you
find so incompetent so loudly and so often become so credible now?

I think I am going to concentrate on the claim that 1/4 of the poor have a
Tivo or a DVR. I don't believe that RICH people have that sort of market
penetration. I think, over the weeks, we'll see sociologists, statisticians
and real researchers start finding battleship sized holes in their data.

That would be a typical result for Heritage (and for many "stink tanks" both
liberal and conservative) - this partisan pseudo-research garbage occurs on
both sides of the aisle. It's a report to keep an eye on, that's for sure,
but I think once real researchers get down into the weeds with the data and
methodology they will find some serious anomalies.

I've found the site:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-americas-poor

and I'll let you know what I find in the way of real research.

FWIW, an article in the NY Times on Wednesday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us...ef=todayspaper

WASHINGTON - Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United
States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of
Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was
the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on
it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...0s-levels.html

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household
incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1996.

Odd that the Heritage Foundation chose a few days before the official Census
Bureau report to put their spin on it. How Rovian - advance counter
propaganda: "Sure there are more people in poverty than ever before, but
it's a *nice* poverty." It might be interesting to compare the two reports
for the nitty gritty details and to see how their methodologies compare.

The Census report proves what people have been saying all along. The middle
class is migrating all right - but into the lower classes, not the upper
ones. Since we sold our businesses and homes to China, things have been
looking worse for both the poor and the middle class.

One of the reasons the poor aren't plagued with third world malnutrition is
because various government programs put in place decades ago when people did
have those maladies. With foodstamps and other aid they eat well enough to
avoid rickets, scurvy and other diseases of *severe* malnutrition. Believe
it or not, at one time people cared that the richest nation on earth had
such serious poverty. Now the poor have becoming whipping boys for excesses
of Wall Street. The rich are trying to make the case that the programs we
voted for decades ago have left them not poor enough. I guess it's because
the poor don't have "stink tanks" to spin data their way.

I would like to know details about what kind of "electronics" they have,
where and how they acquired them (thrift shop, dumpster) and how current
they are. I have over 30 computers in my house, some dating back to 1984.
Does that make me super-wealthy?

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.

That they scrounged from dumpsters or thrift stores. There is a small army
of people that cruise my neighborhood (so says my CCTV cam) in the wee hours
before trash pickup, making off with whatever they think has value. I've
seen my old tube color TV, an RCA that lasted 25 years and still had a
(rather bloomed) viewable picture carted off. I always leave working but
obsolete stuff in a clear plastic bag on top of the trash can and it's
almost never there when the trashmen arrive. Yes, I could call Purple Heart
and get a deduction for it, but I'm like Oliver Wendell Holmes. I don't
mind paying taxes because with them I buy civilization.

So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!

Yes, that seems to be the upshot. Wall Street raped the country. Round up
the usual suspects, none of whom will be Wall Streeters. It's apparent to
me that the rioting and regime change we're seeing throughout the world is a
response to no jobs, no money and no likelihood for them to come any time
soon. Worse still, for countries like Egypt, they lose tourism money - and
quite a bit - when they're in revolt, compounding the problem. A new Middle
East war is brewing, and I think we won't really be bring the troops home.
We'll just be reassigning them.

I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.

Nor do I. I am for spending more to hire investigators and auditors to find
waste and cheats and deal with them. Harshly.

But the answer to that is jobs.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.

Not going to happen. Like that movie, those jobs are "Gone, Baby, Gone."
There doesn't seem to be anything like the PC revolution coming along to
save us this time. Computer technology is one of the few things that are
basically keeping the US economy afloat:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...y%20health.png

Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.

Yes, he's proved to be a disappointment but in this era, getting Dems and
Repubs to vote for a simple mom and apple pie bill is dubious. The gridlock
of the economy ironically parallels the gridlock in government. Hmmm.

So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.

Like Warren Buffet said, government is the only entity large enough to act
as a counterbalance to the boom/bust cycles that are an inherent part of
capitalism. What we're seeing in the world is the Chinese and Russians
moving away from pure socialism as we move away from pure capitalism.
Everything in moderation comes to mind.

Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?

Agreed. They have cost-shifted onto the Feds and they *like* it that way.

Look at agribusiness. Do you think they want profitable crops to wither and
die on the vine for lack of fruitpickers? They certainly don't want the
government to *really* crack down on illegal immigrants, they much prefer
that politicians endlessly *threaten* to do something about it and yet do
nothing. Just like we've seen for the last 20 years.

The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.

It's just a part of "global leveling." As we embrace socialist practices,
socialists embrace capitalistic ones. The end results will be a blend of
the two theories because each is too fallible to stand alone without help
from the other. The worst part of this is that American wages and our
standard of living almost mathematically have to fall as cross-leveling
occurs. It's why our manufacturing plants often got broken down and shipped
in crates to China. It's why a Chinese company is doing the work on the SF
bridge. Their wages and income rise as ours falls. The time to do
something about it has long passed, I am afraid and reminds me of a magazine
cover I saw a long, long time ago that said: "What makes you think you're
going to live better than your parents did?"

When the Republicans regain control, and I think that they will, and they
are unable to reverse the downward spiral, which I think is also likely, I
wonder what they'll say?

Right now Americans have been deluded into believe that a change of parties
will fix this. I don't think so. This is the new reality. There's a great
line from the very odd Canadian film "Videodrome" that covers this, but I'm
afraid it's in one of those Swiss cheese holes in my brain. "We salute the
new flesh" is the best I can do . . .

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:17:56 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...think-tank-say
s-most.html


What's the point of this article?
Poor people have a couple thousand dollars of possessions, counting
cars. Maybe less, depending on whether they scrounge well.
They can come up with 50 bucks a month to get cable TV.

I pay $14 a month for basic cable. Fortunately my local government mandated
as part of the franchise agreement to keep a low-end pricing tier available.
So without specifying what they're paying, it could be $14, it could be
$150. We just don't know even though it has bearing on the issue. Digging
into the report, I cannot find any information about the values of these
"outrageous for the poor to possess" possessions.

So what?
I'd guess they have to pay their electric and gas bills too.
Do they have insurance for their cars?

Only because insurers have turned the state governments into their
collection agencies.

House insurance if they have one?
Medical insurance, or do they go to the E-room?
How many are "working poor?"

I worked with secretaries that worked very hard for 1/5 of the salary I made
and 1/10 the salary the VP's got. I know the working poor and have
personally helped them when I can. When my secretary went to nightschool, I
finagled TPTB to allow her study group to meet in our building and
chaperoned them to help her in her quest to better herself.

She and others on staff like her were so poor and so constantly in need of
money that they couldn't afford to match the pension fund contributions the
company would make because they needed every penny in the here and now.
They left free (future) money on the table because the needs of the present
were so pressing.

The bosses moved the company to a very ritzy neighborhood without good
public transportation access making the commute doubly hard for the poorer
employees.

I always figure it's their toys - especially cable TV - that keeps
poor people in the U.S. from *really* realizing they are poor.

Thanks the Romans for this societal control measure. Back then it was bread
and circuses. Now it's food stamps and cable TV. Same principle, though.

Keeps them just busy enough not to dwell on the fact they are poor.
The poor of other cultures handle it their own way, not needing
"material" goods to entertain them.
Irish, Poles and Russians socialize and drink a lot.
Much more alcoholism I think. Not sure though.
My wife is originally from Poland and I hear about alcoholics all the
time.

Say cscecz for me. One of my first GF's was a Pole from Bayonne NJ with a
huge friendly family that all exhibited a constant thankfulness that they
had made it to America and a better life. The Poles have taken quite a
beating in the last 100 years. Cscecz is about all I remember. I think it
means hello but it could mean how are you.

But these are all mechanisms to keep the poor from rioting or turning
to crime because of their condition.

An unfortunate part of this is that drug sales peak dramatically when
welfare and SSA checks arrive. More bread and circuses, really, because a
heroin user ain't gonna riot when he's high. I wonder: when the people who
want to end all this get what they want, are they really going to be happy
with what they get?

If it ever got to where the poor couldn't afford cable TV, the
government and Wall Street would provide them free cable.
Maintain the status quo.

Bread and circuses came about after a number of food riots from famines
which spilled over into the wealthy neighborhoods. It's lasted because it
works.

I don't even know any poor people.
Steve just mentioned somebody who is poor and was looking for a place
to live.
Wonder is she has an Xbox.

Her private parts are NOT relevant! (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming
your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?

To understand that requires understanding both history AND cause and effect.
What are the chances with certain individuals? (-:

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.

Nor do I. I am for spending more to hire investigators and auditors to find
waste and cheats and deal with them. Harshly.
One of the shots at Medicare "reform" during the Bush years included
Congress specifically funding a troop of FBI agents to deal with nothing
but MCare fraud. The results have been spotty at best.


But the answer to that is jobs.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.

Not going to happen. Like that movie, those jobs are "Gone, Baby, Gone."
There doesn't seem to be anything like the PC revolution coming along to
save us this time. Computer technology is one of the few things that are
basically keeping the US economy afloat:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...y%20health.png

And also causing us problems. If you look at manufacturing output,
even measured in constant dollars, it has actually gone up since the
80s. What has happened is mfg productivity gains since then have cut the
number of JOBS. We haven't lost nearly as many mfg jobs to the Chinese
as we have to the Robots.





So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.

Like Warren Buffet said, government is the only entity large enough to act
as a counterbalance to the boom/bust cycles that are an inherent part of
capitalism. What we're seeing in the world is the Chinese and Russians
moving away from pure socialism as we move away from pure capitalism.
Everything in moderation comes to mind.

And name one country where the government has actually been able
to act as a counterbalance to the boom and bust cycle? I haven't seen
it.

occurs. It's why our manufacturing plants often got broken down and
shipped
in crates to China.

Not really. See above.

When the Republicans regain control, and I think that they will, and they
are unable to reverse the downward spiral, which I think is also likely, I
wonder what they'll say?
My guess is that they will do what the Dems are doing now and blame
the other party. Pretty much a given. Don't know why you even bothered
to ask the question (g).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Steve B" wrote in message news:F73cq.4059

Kudos, sir. I took it as truth when I noticed that so many credible
agencies took part. Also, it was noted, but not stated in this article
that
a percentage near 50% owned their own homes.

I am confused. If the Federal government, as so many conservatives claim,
is inept, untrustworthy and coerced by Marxists, why trust a single word of
any report they put out? Do they only become credible when they seem to
support a conclusion you agree with?

Why haven't the Feds fumbled the data upon which this research is allegedly
based the way they supposedly make a mess of everything else?

Are you even sure that what Heritage *says* these reports reveal is what
they really what's in the reports? Lots of links in the chain, each one
needs to be investigated thoroughly. The Heritage folks seem to think that
a quarter of a million Americans being homeless is no big thing. I don't.

As I trace through the report's footnotes, I find a disturbing number of
references to previous works by the authors of the current report. So far,
lots of pointers to reports, but not much in the way of how that information
was extracted, "massaged" or how reliable it is. Surveying the poor is
tricky business. They are often afraid that the wrong answers to questions
will hurt them in some way - and quite often, they are correct. Reaching
the homeless and those poor enough not have a telephone is always very
tricky to account for properly. Without their methodology, their
conclusions are doubtful.

--
Bobby G.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:46Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:00:59 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta...

Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?

It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?

Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.
So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!
I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.
But the answer to that is jobs.

Another myth easily busted. The poverty rate today is just slightly
higher than it was before. It's varied from about 12% to 15% over
the last 40 years through boom or bust. It's also just about where
it was before Johnson declared war on poverty and the govt spent
trillions on welfare over the next 40 years. So, if the economy
were at full employment, instead of 15% you'd have 13%. Better?
Yes. But the answer to poverty? No way.


Never said anything about answering poverty.
Said jobs is the answer to welfare.
Only change I'll make is to change "jobs" to "decent-paying jobs."
Food stamps and Medicaid is welfare to me.
That's about doubled since this "recession" started.
Then I'll change "answer to that" to "answer to reducing that."
Just to keep your nitpicking ass happy.

You'll always have some poverty.
Unemployment is high, and poverty is up.
Charts always show that correlation.
Any stats you have above are bogus - too many variables in how
unemployment and poverty stats are tallied.
Besides that, low wage jobs still qualify people for welfare but don't
show up in the unemployment figures.
Decent paying jobs will knock it down to the usual levels.
Low-wage jobs for multiple wage-earner families will do the same.
Jobs and poverty is always related.
I was poor when I didn't have a job. Don't know if I was counted.
That was in 1983.
Record unemployment and record poverty level under Ronald Reagan.
That's when "street people" began appearing all over downtown Chicago.
Go find a moron to tell that high unemployment is unrelated to welfare
and poverty. Won't work with me.
Got no idea why you call it a myth, and won't be rude in speculating.
You're the first person I've ever encountered who says not having a
job is unrelated to poverty.
Everybody else knows better.
Without high unemployment pushing it up, poverty gets little press.
Might not matter now, with Xboxes and cable TV making it acceptable.
According to the Heritage Foundation anyway.



The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.
Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.


You need to look at the other side of the equation. Today that
family living in poverty can buy an air conditioner for $100. If
it and all the other cheap things that can be bought from abroad
cost twice that because we erect trade barriers, are they going
to be better off or worse off?


I'd rather they were working and paying $300 for the A/C, or going
without, than living off public money.
Productive work is good for the soul, and the economy.
Doing it your way just leads to more people on welfare.
That's exactly what's happening right now.
And it's going to get worse.
So don't complain when you get it your way.


Also, I think everyone pretty much agrees that one thing that
made the Great Depression worse was passing trade barriers
trying to do exactly what you propose.


I proposed nothing except taking a whip to the free traders who think
shipping 50,000 factories to China in the last decade was a good idea.
Al Gore used that Smoot-Hawley argument to get NAFTA passed.
Usual "free trader" ploy.
Of course nobody was talking about Smoot-Hawley to Gore, and I didn't
mention it here either.
BTW, Milton Friedman disagrees with you about the effect of trade
barriers on the Great Depression.


So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.

Poverty went from 13% to 15% from this recession. Clearly,
linking the vast majority of poverty to the availability of jobs
is nonsense.


You sound just like Al Gore, with his Smoot-Hawley.
Nobody mentioned "vast majority" except you.
Haven't I already taught you that your Al Gore bull**** don't work
with me?


Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?
The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.

--Vic

I'd be interested in seeing data on how many Walmart employees are on
food stamps and Medicaid. You have it? It really doesn't matter, as
there will always be people on govt programs working part-time in
minimum wage jobs for one reason or another.


Google it. As I recall you can find state stats on Walmart, Kroger,
et al employees on Medicaid and stamps.
I remember seeing it for Ohio and maybe Alabama.

BTW, since you're so ****ed off about jobs, what about what Obama
is doing to Boeing? Unlike the simple research article that has your
shorts in a knot, which really affects nothing,

I'm retired, no mortgage, have plenty of money in the bank, two
pensions counting SS, and good health insurance.
My kids are all working with good jobs and insurance.
Why would I be ****ed?
Doesn't mean I don't want other Americans getting jobs.
It's just natural. I'm an American. A vet even. Good citizen.
Seems you're the one with his panties in a wad.
What got you? Walmart living off socialism?

the Obama administration is doing everything it can
to block Boeing from opening it's plant in SC to build parts for the
new 787. They are doing it because a union in WA state claims
Boeing built the $1 bil plant there to retaliate for a strike years
ago.
Nice job, no? Screw around not only with the jobs in SC, but also
those of the entire 787 program throughout this country and the world.
Then Obama complains when companies like Boeing move jobs
overseas.

You never saw me say anything good about Obama.
He's just another Wall Street yuppie to me.
Like you, he thinks free trade is good because people can buy cheap
goods, even if it's put them on welfare.
Surrounded himself with Bush people.
The guy doesn't have a clue.
But here's something to bunch your panties.
As bad and disgusting as Obama is to me, I don't think there's a
Republican out there who can even hold his jockstrap.
Larry Holmes said that about Marciano. He was probably right too.
Then he apologized for saying it. Wanted more fights.
You won't get an apology from me. I'm retired.

--Vic

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:13:28 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.

That they scrounged from dumpsters or thrift stores. There is a small army
of people that cruise my neighborhood (so says my CCTV cam) in the wee hours
before trash pickup, making off with whatever they think has value. I've
seen my old tube color TV, an RCA that lasted 25 years and still had a
(rather bloomed) viewable picture carted off. I always leave working but
obsolete stuff in a clear plastic bag on top of the trash can and it's
almost never there when the trashmen arrive. Yes, I could call Purple Heart
and get a deduction for it, but I'm like Oliver Wendell Holmes. I don't
mind paying taxes because with them I buy civilization.


Don't forget a big part of your taxes goes to the defense industry and
other so-called "capitalist" companies.
Most of this stuff talked about is available at thrift stores for
relative peanuts. I don't know about Xboxes and DVR's, and of
course even used cars cost some bucks.
I don't know how welfare money works, but it doesn't take much.
Before companies dropped the suit dress policy, I wore thrift store
suits to work for years. I'm medium size and easy to fit.
Cost 5-10 bucks each. Name labels, including Brooks Brothers.
Dry cleaning cost more than the suit.
These weren't beat up suits. No detectable wear.
I always figured they were suits outgrown when the owner got fat,
or dead men's suits. Main reason they end up in a thrift store.
My wife loves shopping these stores, so she did all the "work."
Except for a $250 wool overcoat I bought new when I became a
"bigshot," shoes, socks and skivvies I always buy new, everything else
I've worn is thrift shop.
Ties, shirts, pants, jackets, winter coats, sweaters.
Funny thing is the reaction I've gotten from workmates when they like
my suit and ask where I bought it.
Looks of total incomprehension. Oddly or not, foreigners are most
shocked, especially when I guess it's a dead man's suit.
I always bought electronics new, but one of my kids, who has about
8 computers running at any time, just brought me a perfect 20" IBM
flat screen he picked up at Goodwill for 15 bucks.
I put my working but hugely hulking 20" CRT at the curb.
Paid about $400 for that some years ago.
Anyway, I think many people won't get caught dead in a thrift store.
But it's okay to go to a garage sale.
Lest I've made thrift store shopping sound easy, it's not.
I don't do it. Can't stand it.
My wife loves browsing at them, and goes once or twice a week.
The downside is the containers of bric-a-brac in the basement.
So you need the right wife.


But the answer to that is jobs.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.

Not going to happen. Like that movie, those jobs are "Gone, Baby, Gone."
There doesn't seem to be anything like the PC revolution coming along to
save us this time. Computer technology is one of the few things that are
basically keeping the US economy afloat:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...y%20health.png

Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.

Yes, he's proved to be a disappointment but in this era, getting Dems and
Repubs to vote for a simple mom and apple pie bill is dubious. The gridlock
of the economy ironically parallels the gridlock in government. Hmmm.


My opinion is that those who were never personally involved in
manufacturing have no idea of it's importance as a job multiplier.
The same goes for data processing and even call desk work.
Every job adds other work.
I benefitted and retired from the computer boom.
No different than manufacturing, salaries drove much of it overseas.
It was well underway when I retired, and has only accelerated.
Wall Street "shareholder value" has driven all of this.
I suspect it will happen as you say with "global leveling."
There are alternatives, but as long as Wall Street remains pumped up
they will reign, as they own the pols.
Which means the U.S. will increasingly turn to welfare instead of
work.

The big danger is loss of technical expertise.
Not only are foreigners doing much of the old language programming
for "American" companies, but they lead the way in cutting edge
technologies.
I'm not an engineer, but suspect the same is increasingly true in many
engineering fields.
There are serious national security implications to offshoring too
much, and I'm guessing we are already there.
MAD still has relevance, and I hope the Red Chinese don't too uppity.

--Vic

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:38:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message


So what?
I'd guess they have to pay their electric and gas bills too.
Do they have insurance for their cars?

Only because insurers have turned the state governments into their
collection agencies.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ers/50363390/1

According to this the uninsured rate is almost equal to the "poverty
rate."
When I renew my plates here in Illinois the online screen wants your
insurer, policy number and expiration date.
I have no idea if they cross-reference that with the insurer files
real time. Doubt it.
You can see plenty of work-arounds there.
The biggest risk to having no insurance is an accident or a traffic
stop with no insurance card.
I had a state cop cut me loose on an expired plate when I told him I
just forgot to put the sticker on the plate.
But he cited me for no insurance card when I couldn't find it.
The damn thing was hidden, stuck to another card in my wallet.
Dismissed at traffic court, but that trip was unnecessary.

--Vic

On Sep 15, 4:35*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:46*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:00:59 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta...

Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?

It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?

Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.
So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!
I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.
But the answer to that is jobs.

Another myth easily busted. * The poverty rate today is just slightly
higher than it was before. *It's varied from about 12% to 15% over
the last 40 years through boom or bust. *It's also just about where
it was before Johnson declared war on poverty and the govt spent
trillions on welfare over the next 40 years. *So, if the economy
were at full employment, instead of 15% you'd have 13%. *Better?
Yes. *But the answer to poverty? *No way.

Never said anything about answering poverty.
Said jobs is the answer to welfare.
Only change I'll make is to change "jobs" to "decent-paying jobs."
Food stamps and Medicaid is welfare to me.
That's about doubled since this "recession" started.
Then I'll change "answer to that" to "answer to reducing that."
Just to keep your nitpicking ass happy.

You'll always have some poverty.
Unemployment is high, and poverty is up.
Charts always show that correlation.

Yes, there is a correlation. But poverty has varied
from between 12% and 15%. The point is this
recession or any recession has some effect on
poverty. It's risen to 15%, which is worse than the
40 year low of 12%, but obviously the core problem
of poverty is not recession or economy related.


Any stats you have above are bogus - too many variables in how
unemployment and poverty stats are tallied.

Figures you'd reject official measures of poverty
in favor of just making crap up as you go.



Besides that, low wage jobs still qualify people for welfare but don't
show up in the unemployment figures.
Decent paying jobs will knock it down to the usual levels.
Low-wage jobs for multiple wage-earner families will do the same.
Jobs and poverty is always related.

Yes, as I'll point out one more time, poverty in
this terrible recession is 15%. In the times of
a booming economy and full employment it was
12%. A relationship? Sure. The cause of most
poverty? No.

And where do you expect those decent paying
jobs to come from for people with little education
and no skills? That's the problem.

I was poor when I didn't have a job. *Don't know if I was counted.
That was in 1983.
Record unemployment and record poverty level under Ronald Reagan.

It was not record unemployment, nor record poverty. For
example the poverty rates in the 1950's were far higher.
And that was a time when better paying jobs were
available to the uneducated and unskilled.

Unemployment did briefly rise under Reagan as he
cleaned up the mess he inherited. Arguably as bad
as what Obama inherited. Inflation out of control,
high interest rates, and a stalling economy. The
difference which you obviously missed is that by
this time in the Reagan administration his economic
turnaround was well under way and new jobs were
being created. When he took office, unempoyment was
as 7.5%. When he left office unemployment was at 5.4%, inflation was
sharply reduced and interest rates had been cut in half. America's
respect in the world was restored
and he won the cold war without firing a shot.



That's when "street people" began appearing all over downtown Chicago.
Go find a moron to tell that high unemployment is unrelated to welfare
and poverty. *Won't work with me.

One more time. I never said it was unrelated, only
that poverty rises slightly because of it. As for morons,
I gave you numbers for poverty based on actual
govt data. Data that economists use. What data
to you have on poverty?




Got no idea why you call it a myth, and won't be rude in speculating.
You're the first person I've ever encountered who says not having a
job is unrelated to poverty.
Everybody else knows better.

What I called a myth is that most poverty is caused
by a lack of jobs and that jobs being available will
cure it.



Without high unemployment pushing it up, poverty gets little press.
Might not matter now, with Xboxes and cable TV making it acceptable.
According to the Heritage Foundation anyway.



The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.
Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.

You need to look at the other side of the equation. *Today that
family living in poverty can buy an air conditioner for $100. *If
it and all the other cheap things that can be bought from abroad
cost twice that because we erect trade barriers, are they going
to be better off or worse off?

I'd rather they were working and paying $300 for the A/C, or going
without, than living off public money.

Follow your ideas and we all will be paying $300 for that
AC and most of those in poverty will still be in poverty.
Poverty was much higher in the 1950's for example
when the makeup of the economy was more to your
liking, ie good jobs for the uneductated and unskilled.



Productive work is good for the soul, and the economy.
Doing it your way just leads to more people on welfare.
That's exactly what's happening right now.
And it's going to get worse.
So don't complain when you get it your way.

What good jobs would your propose for people who
are uneducated and unskilled?



Also, I think everyone pretty much agrees that one thing that
made the Great Depression worse was passing trade barriers
trying to do exactly what you propose.

I proposed nothing except taking a whip to the free traders who think
shipping 50,000 factories to China in the last decade was a good idea.
Al Gore used that Smoot-Hawley argument to get NAFTA passed.
Usual "free trader" ploy.
Of course nobody was talking about Smoot-Hawley to Gore, and I didn't
mention it here either.
BTW, Milton Friedman disagrees with you about the effect of trade
barriers on the Great Depression.



I'd like to see the reference for that claim.





So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.

I'll bet you bitched big time when the Republican Congress
forced Clinton to "end welfare as we know it." Yet that
change which was supposed to be a disasster according
to the libs was an overwhelming success. It helped end
30 years of having one generation after another on the
welfare dole.




Poverty went from 13% to 15% from this recession. *Clearly,
linking the vast majority of poverty to the availability of jobs
is nonsense.

You sound just like Al Gore, with his Smoot-Hawley.
Nobody mentioned "vast majority" except you.
Haven't I already taught you that your Al Gore bull**** don't work
with me?


I thinnk it's obvious that Al Gore's thinking and party
affiliation is a lot closer to yours than mine.





Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?
The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.

--Vic

I'd be interested in seeing data on how many Walmart employees are on
food stamps and Medicaid. *You have it? * It really doesn't matter, as
there will always be people on govt programs working part-time in
minimum wage jobs for one reason or another.

Google it. *As I recall you can find state stats on Walmart, Kroger,
et al *employees on Medicaid and stamps.
I remember seeing it for Ohio and maybe Alabama.

In other words, despite throwing around claims, you
have no data.



BTW, since you're so ****ed off about jobs, what about what Obama
is doing to Boeing? * Unlike the simple research article that has your
shorts in a knot, which really affects nothing,

I'm retired, no mortgage, have plenty of money in the bank, two
pensions counting SS, and good health insurance.
My kids are all working with good jobs and insurance.
Why would I be ****ed?
Doesn't mean I don't want other Americans getting jobs.
*It's just natural. *I'm an American. * A vet even. *Good citizen..
Seems you're the one with his panties in a wad.
What got you? *Walmart living off socialism?

the Obama administration is doing everything it can
to block Boeing from opening it's plant in SC to build parts for the
new 787. *They are doing it because a union in WA state claims
Boeing built the $1 bil plant there to retaliate for a strike years
ago.
Nice job, no? *Screw around not only with the jobs in SC, but also
those of the entire 787 program throughout this country and the world.
Then Obama complains when companies like Boeing move jobs
overseas.

You never saw me say anything good about Obama.
He's just another Wall Street yuppie to me.
Like you, he thinks free trade is good because people can buy cheap
goods, even if it's put them on welfare.
Surrounded himself with Bush people.

Now that shows how out of touch you are.
Where exactly did that fact come from?
Names of those Bush people please.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
wrote:

I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.

Nor do I. I am for spending more to hire investigators and auditors to
find
waste and cheats and deal with them. Harshly.

One of the shots at Medicare "reform" during the Bush years included
Congress specifically funding a troop of FBI agents to deal with nothing
but MCare fraud. The results have been spotty at best.

I guess if we tried it once and it wasn't a blockbuster hit we should just
give up. (-; We've really got that sort of mentality in this country (no
offense). If a TV show isn't an instant hit, cancel it. If a movie doesn't
have people seeing it three times on opening day, it's a flop headed
straight for DVD and cable. And one you should know very well: If a drug
isn't a blockbuster, a pharmaceutical company's stock drops as fast as a
'Jersey Shore' girl's panties.

Not going to happen. Like that movie, those jobs are "Gone, Baby,
Gone."
There doesn't seem to be anything like the PC revolution coming along to
save us this time. Computer technology is one of the few things that
are
basically keeping the US economy afloat:


http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...y%20health.png


And also causing us problems. If you look at manufacturing output,
even measured in constant dollars, it has actually gone up since the
80s. What has happened is mfg productivity gains since then have cut the
number of JOBS. We haven't lost nearly as many mfg jobs to the Chinese
as we have to the Robots.

The paradox of productivity. We had better find a way out of this puzzle
before we collapse because without jobs, what will people use to pay for
robot created goods? I see a totally mechanized future where factories
produce stuff, robot consumers buy it, smash it, recycle the pieces so that
more stuff can be made and sold ad infinitum. Robots would never have a
credit crunch or lose faith in the economy and would always do what they are
told. I know because in sixth grade I played the part of Dr. Fabry in
"Rossum's Univeral Robots." (-: And proved to myself that acting was NOT
in my future. It gave me great respect for people who can memorize both
their lines and their cues. It really is a skill/gift or whatever. But as
always, I digress.

stuff snipped

Like Warren Buffet said, government is the only entity large enough to
act
as a counterbalance to the boom/bust cycles that are an inherent part of
capitalism. What we're seeing in the world is the Chinese and Russians
moving away from pure socialism as we move away from pure capitalism.
Everything in moderation comes to mind.

And name one country where the government has actually been able
to act as a counterbalance to the boom and bust cycle? I haven't seen
it.

You're living in one. While it can't affect an instant change, the
government can soften the blow considerably. Without the stimulus spending,
food stamps, Medicare/caid, Headstart, SSA, etc. we would be in far, FAR
worse shape than we are. Ironically, a lot of those payments to the poor
(like Section 8 housing assistance) end up in the hands of middle class
landlords, merchants and service employees (the trickle UP theory). Ending
these programs is going to affect a lot more people than just the poor.

When the economy crashed in the 30's there was real and valid concern that
the nation would go socialist. There's no guarantee that won't happen
again, especially if all those programs are cut to the bone. If God forbid
some white supremacist killed Obama, the country would go up in flames the
next day.

The Federal government may not be the perfect counterbalance, but it's a
hell of lot more effective than anything else except massive wars, and they
counterbalance economic woes by ways that most people don't really want.
Rationing, destruction and killing. Most economists believe that the
stimulus did have an effect and cushioned a lot of the fall. We'll know how
true that is when the stimulus money runs out and Congress stalls on any
jobs package. I'd rather see my tax dollars pay a guy to clear underbrush
or scrape and paint bridges than sit at home collecting unemployment. I
believe our infrastructure was rated a "D" in a recent engineering survey.
We invented the Internet but we're 25th behind S. Korea when it comes to
broadband access.

We're too far distant from WWII for anyone but the very oldest to really
remember how bad that was. I am afraid that's where we are heading. It's
all part of the boom/bust cycle. When a country is "busted" bad enough like
Germany, bad things follow. Lots of the same situations that preceded WWII
are falling into place. The players are different but the issues are the
same: borders, control of resources, monetary woes, etc.

occurs. It's why our manufacturing plants often got broken down and
shipped in crates to China.

Not really. See above.

I believe it's like the issue of "was it Reagan tax cuts or the creation of
an entire new sector of the economy, personal computers, that led to some
very golden years?" It's a little bit of both. You only have to examine
the computer you're typing this on to realize that it's made in China like
so many other things. It's a basic effect of competition. Robots are
expensive. People are actually cheaper in many ways. When it came to
checking out the damage at Fukushima, they didn't send in robots. Too
costly. They sent in people. )-:

When the Republicans regain control, and I think that they will, and
they
are unable to reverse the downward spiral, which I think is also likely,
I
wonder what they'll say?

My guess is that they will do what the Dems are doing now and blame
the other party. Pretty much a given. Don't know why you even bothered
to ask the question (g).

Yeah. But at what point will people realize that those jobs aren't coming
back no matter WHO they vote for? When you're given a pink slip, it doesn't
really matter to you whether it was a Chinese worker or a robot who took
your job. It's gone, baby, gone. Can we keep switching parties forever
before someone notices that the old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be
and some serious change is required?

One possible end to the decline could be when Chinese wages rise to meet the
declining American wages. That's a fugly situation. If I had the heart I'd
take the average world hourly wage and project where the US average might
end up.

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:23:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 15, 4:35Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "



Any stats you have above are bogus - too many variables in how
unemployment and poverty stats are tallied.

Figures you'd reject official measures of poverty
in favor of just making crap up as you go.


Haven't made anything up.
No sense throwing out figures that can be interpreted different ways.
The sure thing is unemployment increases poverty.
Can't be disputed.

I was poor when I didn't have a job. Â*Don't know if I was counted.
That was in 1983.
Record unemployment and record poverty level under Ronald Reagan.

It was not record unemployment, nor record poverty. For
example the poverty rates in the 1950's were far higher.
And that was a time when better paying jobs were
available to the uneducated and unskilled.


Except for the depression, Reagan oversaw the highest unemployment.
I predict Obama or the next President will get the new record.
The 50's was a different world in America. Still mostly rural.
You'd expect poverty to be high. I was running around naked in the
Ozarks, bathing in a washtub filled with bucket well water, and going
to town once a week with grandpa to get ice for the icebox.
Wasn't that unusual either.
Only ate meat once or twice a week.


Unemployment did briefly rise under Reagan as he
cleaned up the mess he inherited. Arguably as bad
as what Obama inherited. Inflation out of control,
high interest rates, and a stalling economy. The
difference which you obviously missed is that by
this time in the Reagan administration his economic
turnaround was well under way and new jobs were
being created. When he took office, unempoyment was
as 7.5%. When he left office unemployment was at 5.4%, inflation was
sharply reduced and interest rates had been cut in half. America's
respect in the world was restored
and he won the cold war without firing a shot.


He didn't win the cold war. Myth.
The Polish Pope, Solidarity, VCR's and the natural advancement of free
world technology crumbled the Soviets.
The old guard died off, and the new leaders saw they couldn't keep the
people locked up. Unsustainable system in a modern world.
Reagan just happened to be there.
I saw the first crack appear in the '70's when Carter's pressure led
the Soviets to allow Jews to emigrate.
The first time in Soviet history that external pressure affected
internal policy.
And I had family behind the curtain, in Poland.
Watched it happening in slow motion.
You go ahead and believe that Reagan myth is it suits you.
The Reagan recession was just that, a recession.
This ain't a recession. It's a sea change.
The powers that be are just catching on to that.
They are too dumbstruck to figure out solutions.
Especially when solutions run against the grain of their experience.


Data that economists use. What data
to you have on poverty?

You can easily find the poverty/unemployment stats.
I'm not playing the "cite" game with somebody who wants to argue.
Just leads to endless citing and cherry-picking.
I don't care if you don't like that.


What I called a myth is that most poverty is caused
by a lack of jobs and that jobs being available will
cure it.


That entirely depends on level of unemployment.
I suspect most poverty in the depression was caused by joblessness.
And no, I don't want to argue about that.
If you reject it, just call it a myth.



I'd rather they were working and paying $300 for the A/C, or going
without, than living off public money.

Follow your ideas and we all will be paying $300 for that
AC and most of those in poverty will still be in poverty.
Poverty was much higher in the 1950's for example
when the makeup of the economy was more to your
liking, ie good jobs for the uneductated and unskilled.


Different world in the 50's. Almost stone age.
Hell, being cross-eyed might get you a lobotomy.
You can decide what the breakeven point is on the A/C.
Pay $300 for yours and less taxes for welfare, or $100 for yours and
the taxes to buy millions more for welfare recipients.
Not an easy calculation.



Productive work is good for the soul, and the economy.
Doing it your way just leads to more people on welfare.
That's exactly what's happening right now.
And it's going to get worse.
So don't complain when you get it your way.

What good jobs would your propose for people who
are uneducated and unskilled?


Factory jobs even in automated plants have plenty of work for the
unskilled, and opportunities to get skilled.
The multipliers add up big time from support logistics and salaries
spent giving other companies business.
Every job counts. Machine operators, fork-lift drivers, floor
sweepers, and the guy running the lunch truck outside at noon.
They all feed the service industries.
But when you send 50,000 factories to China in the last decade
all that is gone.
I won't vouch for that figure. It's the one bandied about.

Milton Friedman

I'd like to see the reference for that claim.


Wiki Smoot-Hawley.




So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.

I'll bet you bitched big time when the Republican Congress
forced Clinton to "end welfare as we know it." Yet that
change which was supposed to be a disasster according
to the libs was an overwhelming success. It helped end
30 years of having one generation after another on the
welfare dole.

You lost that bet. What is you don't understand when I say I don't
like welfare?



Poverty went from 13% to 15% from this recession. Â*Clearly,
linking the vast majority of poverty to the availability of jobs
is nonsense.

You sound just like Al Gore, with his Smoot-Hawley.
Nobody mentioned "vast majority" except you.
Haven't I already taught you that your Al Gore bull**** don't work
with me?


I thinnk it's obvious that Al Gore's thinking and party
affiliation is a lot closer to yours than mine.


You, Clinton, Gore and Bush are the great believers that $100 A/C's
and high home ownership solves all problems.
I'm the guy that thinks everybody who can work should be working
instead of collecting welfare.
Simple as that.


Google it. Â*As I recall you can find state stats on Walmart, Kroger,
et al Â*employees on Medicaid and stamps.
I remember seeing it for Ohio and maybe Alabama.

In other words, despite throwing around claims, you
have no data.

It's easily found. Don't know why you don't know it already.


You never saw me say anything good about Obama.
He's just another Wall Street yuppie to me.
Like you, he thinks free trade is good because people can buy cheap
goods, even if it's put them on welfare.
Surrounded himself with Bush people.

Now that shows how out of touch you are.
Where exactly did that fact come from?
Names of those Bush people please.


Bernacke on one side and Geithner on the other qualifies as
surrounding for me.
Then you have other pure Wall Streeters like Daley, Summers, Rubin,
Immelt, et al, working in advisory capacity.
Nothing much changed from Bush or Clinton.
Not much difference between Bush and Clinton, except Bush was a
warmonger.
The last good Dem President was Dick Nixon who wanted national health
care, then Ronald Reagan, who actually forced the Jap car makers to
locate plants here.
The gov has been run by Wall Street for a long time, getting in high
gear with Clinton.
All the bubbles have burst, and too many of the production jobs are
gone.
We'll see when and if the economy can turn around.
Unlike you I'll never cleave unto political parties or be repelled
from them because of jerking knees.
I always look at policy.
There's no difference between R's and D's except at the margins.
Wall Street money runs the show.
The R's will cave to welfarism as readily as the D's when Wall Street
and unrest tells them to. Otherwise they'll just be kicked out.

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:38:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

I pay $14 a month for basic cable.

The $15 a month service here (really more like $30 with taxes and
fees) pretty much gives you what you can get with a coat hanger, Local
broadcast channels.

I'm in a valley between Balto. and DC so when I had analog rabbit ears, I
could detect any and all air traffic but got really lousy reception
otherwise. )-: I barely see anything with HDTV - only one station comes
in and that pixelates often.

On the other hand, with basic cable I get things like CSpan, WGN, two
university channels with 24 hour educational programming and a clear, ghost
free signal on the channels I couldn't get short of a roof antenna and a
rotor. I used to get a lot more, but Comcast has been steadily dropping
analog channels. Things will change when Comcast abandons its analog
transmission but I've hung on with analog because I believe they'll have to
provide me with a free converter if they want to switch to all digital
sooner than the FCC allows. (-: We'll see.

That may be the time I repair my roof mounted aerial and switch to OTA HDTV
completely. The issue now is that my "home" CATV network is still almost all
analog. We have HDTV's in the LR and BR connected to DVD players for
Netflix. News, network TV and the rest of it go to the analog network and
an assortment of 13" to 25" analog color TVs.

I've found I can pay an awful lot for premium cable and STILL find times
where there's nothing on I want to watch. My friends with 500 some odd
channels on his system says the same thing.

--
Bobby G.

I'd be interested in seeing data on how many Walmart employees are on
food stamps and Medicaid. *You have it? * It really doesn't matter, as
there will always be people on govt programs working part-time in
minimum wage jobs for one reason or another.

Google it. *As I recall you can find state stats on Walmart, Kroger,
et al *employees on Medicaid and stamps.
I remember seeing it for Ohio and maybe Alabama.

BTW, since you're so ****ed off about jobs, what about what Obama
is doing to Boeing? * Unlike the simple research article that has your
shorts in a knot, which really affects nothing,

I'm retired, no mortgage, have plenty of money in the bank, two
pensions counting SS, and good health insurance.
My kids are all working with good jobs and insurance.
Why would I be ****ed?
Doesn't mean I don't want other Americans getting jobs.
*It's just natural. *I'm an American. * A vet even. *Good citizen..
Seems you're the one with his panties in a wad.
What got you? *Walmart living off socialism?

the Obama administration is doing everything it can
to block Boeing from opening it's plant in SC to build parts for the
new 787. *They are doing it because a union in WA state claims
Boeing built the $1 bil plant there to retaliate for a strike years
ago.
Nice job, no? *Screw around not only with the jobs in SC, but also
those of the entire 787 program throughout this country and the world.
Then Obama complains when companies like Boeing move jobs
overseas.

You never saw me say anything good about Obama.
He's just another Wall Street yuppie to me.
Like you, he thinks free trade is good because people can buy cheap
goods, even if it's put them on welfare.
Surrounded himself with Bush people.
The guy doesn't have a clue.
But here's something to bunch your panties.
As bad and disgusting as Obama is to me, I don't think there's a
Republican out there who can even hold his jockstrap.
Larry Holmes said that about Marciano. *He was probably right too.
Then he apologized for saying it. *Wanted more fights.
You won't get an apology from me. *I'm retired.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you sayis right. The main problem is that the Chineses keep
their currency artificially low thus creating an army of near slave
labour.
Thus is is not "free trade".
It's a deliberate ploy to destroy the West. They know they could
never win militarily.

A trade barrier against the Chinese would make sense until they let
their currency float.

On Sep 15, 9:43*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:13:28 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.

That they scrounged from dumpsters or thrift stores. *There is a small army
of people that cruise my neighborhood (so says my CCTV cam) in the wee hours
before trash pickup, making off with whatever they think has value. *I've
seen my old tube color TV, an RCA that lasted 25 years and still had a
(rather bloomed) viewable picture carted off. *I always leave working but
obsolete stuff in a clear plastic bag on top of the trash can and it's
almost never there when the trashmen arrive. *Yes, I could call Purple Heart
and get a deduction for it, but I'm like Oliver Wendell Holmes. *I don't
mind paying taxes because with them I buy civilization.

Don't forget a big part of your taxes goes to the defense industry and
other so-called "capitalist" companies.
Most of this stuff talked about is available at thrift stores for
relative peanuts. *I don't know about Xboxes and DVR's, and of
course even used cars cost some bucks.
I don't know how welfare money works, but it doesn't take much.
Before companies dropped the suit dress policy, I wore thrift store
suits to work for years. *I'm medium size and easy to fit.
Cost 5-10 bucks each. *Name labels, including Brooks Brothers.
Dry cleaning cost more than the suit.
These weren't beat up suits. *No detectable wear.
I always figured they were suits outgrown when the owner got fat,
or dead men's suits. *Main reason they end up in a thrift store.
My wife loves shopping these stores, so she did all the "work."
Except for a $250 wool overcoat I bought new when I became a
"bigshot," shoes, socks and skivvies I always buy new, everything else
I've worn is thrift shop.
Ties, shirts, pants, jackets, winter coats, sweaters.
Funny thing is the reaction I've gotten from workmates when they like
my suit and ask where I bought it.
Looks of total incomprehension. *Oddly or not, foreigners are most
shocked, especially when I guess it's a dead man's suit.
I always bought electronics new, but one of my kids, who has about
8 computers running at any time, just brought me a perfect 20" IBM
flat screen he picked up at Goodwill for 15 bucks.
I put my working but hugely hulking 20" CRT at the curb.
Paid about $400 for that some years ago.
Anyway, I think many people won't get caught dead in a thrift store.
But it's okay to go to a garage sale.
Lest I've made thrift store shopping sound easy, it's not.
I don't do it. *Can't stand it. *
My wife loves browsing at them, and goes once or twice a week.
The downside is the containers of bric-a-brac in the basement.
So you need the right wife. *







But the answer to that is jobs.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.

Not going to happen. *Like that movie, those jobs are "Gone, Baby, Gone."
There doesn't seem to be anything like the PC revolution coming along to
save us this time. *Computer technology is one of the few things that are
basically keeping the US economy afloat:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...oductivity%20h...

Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.

Yes, he's proved to be a disappointment but in this era, getting Dems and
Repubs to vote for a simple mom and apple pie bill is dubious. *The gridlock
of the economy ironically parallels the gridlock in government. *Hmmm.

My opinion is that those who were never personally involved in
manufacturing have no idea of it's importance as a job multiplier.
The same goes for data processing and even call desk work.
Every job adds other work.
I benefitted and retired from the computer boom.
No different than manufacturing, salaries drove much of it overseas.
It was well underway when I retired, and has only accelerated.
Wall Street "shareholder value" has driven all of this.
I suspect it will happen as you say with "global leveling."
There are alternatives, but as long as Wall Street remains pumped up
they will reign, as they own the pols.
Which means the U.S. will increasingly turn to welfare instead of
work.

The big danger is loss of technical expertise.
Not only are foreigners doing much of the old language programming
for "American" companies, but they lead the way in cutting edge
technologies.
I'm not an engineer, but suspect the same is increasingly true in many
engineering fields.
There are serious national security implications to offshoring too
much, and I'm guessing we are already there.
MAD still has relevance, and I hope the Red Chinese don't too uppity.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again you are exactly right.
A marvel. A Yank with common sense!
Things are very much the same in Europe (UK)
My wife too loves Charity shops (=thrift?).

On Sep 15, 10:06*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:38:46 -0400, "Robert Green"

wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

So what?
I'd guess they have to pay their electric and gas bills too.
Do they have insurance for their cars?

Only because insurers have turned the state governments into their
collection agencies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...insured-driver...

According to this the uninsured rate is almost equal to the "poverty
rate."
When I renew my plates here in Illinois the online screen wants your
insurer, policy number and expiration date.
I have no idea if they cross-reference that with the insurer files
real time. *Doubt it.
You can see plenty of work-arounds there.
The biggest risk to having no insurance is an accident or a traffic
stop with no insurance card.
I had a state cop cut me loose on an expired plate when I told him I
just forgot to put the sticker on the plate.
But he cited me for no insurance card when I couldn't find it.
The damn thing was hidden, stuck to another card in my wallet.
Dismissed at traffic court, but that trip was unnecessary.

--Vic *

They certainly cross refence over here. Also the cop cars (and
motorways) have number recognition cameras and instantly flash up
uninsured cars. They can end up in the crusher.
Saw a BMW, brand new, go to the crusher on TV the other day.

On Sep 16, 3:33*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:38:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

I pay $14 a month for basic cable.

The $15 a month service here (really more like $30 with taxes and
fees) pretty much gives you what you can get with a coat hanger, Local
broadcast channels.

I'm in a valley between Balto. and DC so when I had analog rabbit ears, I
could detect any and all air traffic but got really lousy reception
otherwise. *)-: * I barely see anything with HDTV - only one station comes
in and that pixelates often.

On the other hand, with basic cable I get things like CSpan, WGN, two
university channels with 24 hour educational programming and a clear, ghost
free signal on the channels I couldn't get short of a roof antenna and a
rotor. *I used to get a lot more, but Comcast has been steadily dropping
analog channels. *Things will change when Comcast abandons its analog
transmission but I've hung on with analog because I believe they'll have to
provide me with a free converter if they want to switch to all digital
sooner than the FCC allows. *(-: We'll see.

That may be the time I repair my roof mounted aerial and switch to OTA HDTV
completely. The issue now is that my "home" CATV network is still almost all
analog. *We have HDTV's in the LR and BR connected to DVD players for
Netflix. *News, network TV and the rest of it go to the analog network and
an assortment of 13" to 25" analog color TVs.

I've found I can pay an awful lot for premium cable and STILL find times
where there's nothing on I want to watch. *My friends with 500 some odd
channels on his system says the same thing.

--
Bobby G.

You need a satellite dish so you can watch foriegn TV and get some new
ideas/viewpoints.

On Sep 16, 3:33*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:38:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

I pay $14 a month for basic cable.

The $15 a month service here (really more like $30 with taxes and
fees) pretty much gives you what you can get with a coat hanger, Local
broadcast channels.

I'm in a valley between Balto. and DC so when I had analog rabbit ears, I
could detect any and all air traffic but got really lousy reception
otherwise. *)-: * I barely see anything with HDTV - only one station comes
in and that pixelates often.

On the other hand, with basic cable I get things like CSpan, WGN, two
university channels with 24 hour educational programming and a clear, ghost
free signal on the channels I couldn't get short of a roof antenna and a
rotor. *I used to get a lot more, but Comcast has been steadily dropping
analog channels. *Things will change when Comcast abandons its analog
transmission but I've hung on with analog because I believe they'll have to
provide me with a free converter if they want to switch to all digital
sooner than the FCC allows. *(-: We'll see.

That may be the time I repair my roof mounted aerial and switch to OTA HDTV
completely. The issue now is that my "home" CATV network is still almost all
analog. *We have HDTV's in the LR and BR connected to DVD players for
Netflix. *News, network TV and the rest of it go to the analog network and
an assortment of 13" to 25" analog color TVs.

I've found I can pay an awful lot for premium cable and STILL find times
where there's nothing on I want to watch. *My friends with 500 some odd
channels on his system says the same thing.

--
Bobby G.

Oh and you pay nothing for it too :-)

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:


I've found I can pay an awful lot for premium cable and STILL find times
where there's nothing on I want to watch. My friends with 500 some odd
channels on his system says the same thing.

I was listening to Pandora a few weeks and Springsteen came on with
his song about 57 channels and nothing on. I thought "How quaint."

Whenever there's nothing on the CATV there's always something going on here
in Alt.Home.Repair. The Cuomo-initiated slaughter of Usenet actually backed
AHR down to a manageable message count. When I first got here, there was
just too much information to keep up unless you treated it as a full time
job.

--
Bobby G.

*BRUCE, DANIEL D. Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Marine
Corps, Headquarters and Service Company, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st
Marine Division. Place and date: Fire Support Base Tomahawk, Quang Nam
Province, Republic of Vietnam, 1 March 1969. Born: 18 May 1950, Michigan
City, Ind. An enemy explosive charge was thrown toward his position and he
reacted instantly, catching the device. Pfc. Bruce held the device to his
body and attempted to carry it from the vicinity of the entrenched marines.
The charge detonated and he absorbed the full force of the explosion
saving.the lives of 3 of his fellow marines.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:8eydnZT_eropo-
"Robert Green" wrote:


I guess if we tried it once and it wasn't a blockbuster hit we should
just
give up. (-; We've really got that sort of mentality in this country
(no
offense).

Insanity has also been defined as doing the same thing again and
again and expecting a different outcome.

I thought that was the definition of the US Congress . . .

--
Bobby G.

*CAPODANNO, VINCENT R. Rank and organization: Lieutenant, U.S. Navy,
Chaplain Corps, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein), FMF.
Place and date: Quang Tin Province, Republic of Vietnam, 4 September 1967.
Born: 13 February 1929, Staten Island, N.Y. Upon encountering a wounded
corpsman in the direct line of fire of an enemy machine gunner positioned
approximately 15 yards away, Lt. Capodanno attempted to aid and assist the
mortally wounded corpsman. At that instant, only inches from his goal, he
was struck down by a burst of machine gun fire.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:54:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I snipped your Dem bashing and Reagan/Rep ass-kissing.
Also snipped whatever I said, so I'll consider that trash too.
Looks like we're done. Good.

--Vic

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:8eydnZT_eropo-
"Robert Green" wrote:


I guess if we tried it once and it wasn't a blockbuster hit we should
just
give up. (-; We've really got that sort of mentality in this country
(no
offense).

Insanity has also been defined as doing the same thing again and
again and expecting a different outcome.

I thought that was the definition of the US Congress . . .


A form of insanity.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz