114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 09:27 pm
Our government spends money, because we let them; they get reelected to spend more and more.

There's a big difference between spending for necessities and pork barrel spending of our government.

If we are really interested about "security" for our country, our government needs to look out for our citizens to ensure our children have the best education and health care, our infrastructure of transportation and communication are the best, and our borders are secure. Instead, we're spending over 100 billion every year in Iraq. Per capita share of the federal debt amounts to almost $80,000 (if not more) for every man, woman and child - and continues to increase. This is dangerous to the future of our economy.

Bush is a spend, spend, spend republican, and cuts taxes for the wealthy while the federal deficit increases to new levels every day. Bush has increased our government (in staff and payroll), and also intruded more into our lives through No Child Left Behind - a responsibility best left to local control. His drug plan was so screwed up, most senior citizens failed to sign up. Many still don't understand how it works, because of the so-called donut hole.

As more Americans lose their health insurance, the premiums continue to increase by double-digits making it more difficult to purchase private plans and for companies to provide insurance. All this while we spend two billion dollars every week in Iraq. It's a sham and a shame; our government would rather spend money to support a war that kills and maims over the health of our citizens.

I speak for our children and all those families without health insurance. My wife and I have medical, and whatever co-pays we have is easy for us to pay. We're a few of the lucky ones.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Feb, 2007 11:28 pm
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found.

Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure.

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.

"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported.

"That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted.

The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.

"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.

"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

"These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 06:45 am
Although off topic related to this increase poverty is the increase in religion.

Quote:
Religion of despair
Chris Hedges
Published 29 January 2007
http://www.newstatesman.com/200701290030

Disciples of evangelism in the United States are often regarded with fear and suspicion. But for many it's seen as a route out of poverty and hopelessness

The engine that drives the radical Christian right in the United States - the most dangerous mass movement in American history - is not religiosity, but despair. It is a movement built on the growing personal and economic despair of tens of millions of Americans, who watched helplessly as their communities were plunged into poverty by the flight of manufacturing jobs, their families and neighborhoods torn apart by neglect and indifference. They eventually lost hope that America was a place where they had a future.

This despair crosses economic boundaries, enveloping many in the middle class who live trapped in huge, soulless exurbs where, lacking any form of community rituals or centers, they also feel deeply isolated, vulnerable and lonely. Those in despair are the most easily manipulated by demagogues, who promise a fantastic utopia, whether it is a worker's paradise, liberté-égalité-fraternité, or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Those in despair search desperately for a solution, the warm embrace of a community to replace the one they lost, a sense of purpose and meaning in life, the assurance that they are protected, loved and worthwhile.

During the past two years of work on the book American Fascists: the Christian right and the war on America, I kept encountering this deadly despair. Driving down a highway lined with gas stations, fast-food restaurants and dollar stores, I often got vertigo, forgetting for a moment if I was in Detroit or Kansas City or Cleveland. There are parts of the United States, including whole sections of former manufacturing centers such as Ohio, that resemble the developing world, with boarded-up storefronts, dilapidated houses, potholed streets and crumbling schools. The end of the world is no longer an abstraction to many Americans.

Jeniece Learned is typical of many. She was standing, when I met her, amid a crowd of earnest-looking men and women - many with small gold crosses on the lapels of their jackets or around their necks - in a hotel lobby in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. She had an easy smile and a thick mane of black, shoulder-length hair. She was carrying a booklet called Ringing in a Culture of Life. The booklet had the schedule of the two-day event she was attending, which was organized by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. The event was "dedicated to the 46 million children who have died from legal abortions since 1973 and the mothers and fathers who mourn their loss".

Recruiting tool
Learned, who had driven five hours from a town outside Youngstown, Ohio, was raised Jewish. She wore a gold Star of David around her neck with a Christian cross inserted in the middle of the design. She stood up in one of the morning sessions, attended by about 300 people, most of them women, when the speaker, Alveda King, niece of Dr Martin Luther King, asked if there were any "post-abortive" women present.

Learned runs a small pregnancy counseling clinic called Pregnancy Services of Western Pennsylvania in the town of Sharon, where she attempts to talk young girls and women, most of them poor, out of abortions.

She speaks at local schools, promoting sexual abstinence, rather than birth control, as the only acceptable form of contraception. She found in the fight against abortion, and in her conversion, a structure, purpose and meaning that previously eluded her. The battle against abortion is one of the Christian right's most effective recruiting tools. It plays on the guilt and shame of women who have had abortions, accusing them of committing murder, and promising redemption and atonement in the "Christian" struggle to make abortion illegal - a fight for life against "the culture of death".

Learned's life before she was saved was, like for many in this mass movement, chaotic and painful. Her childhood was stolen from her. She was sexually abused by a close member of the family. Her mother periodically woke her and her younger sister and two younger brothers in the middle of the night to flee landlords who wanted back rent. The children would be bundled into the car and driven in darkness to a strange apartment in another town. Her mother worked nights and weekends as a bartender. Learned, the eldest, often had to run the home. Her younger sister, who was sexually abused by another family member, eventually committed suicide as an adult, something Learned also considered. As a teenager she had an abortion.

She was taking classes at Pacific Christian College several years later when she saw an anti-abortion film called The Silent Scream. "You see in this movie the baby backing up trying to get away from this suction tube," she said. "And its mouth is open and it is like this baby is screaming.

"I flipped out. It was at that moment that God just took this veil that I had over my eyes for the last eight years. I couldn't breathe. I was hyperventilating. I ran outside. One of the girls followed me. And she said, 'Did you commit your life to Christ?' And I said, 'I did.' And she said, 'Did you ask for your forgiveness of sins?' And I said, 'I did.' And she goes, 'Does that mean all your sins, or does that mean some of them?' And I said, 'I guess it means all of them.' So she said, 'Basically, you are thinking God hasn't forgiven you for your abortion because that is a worse sin than any of your other sins that you have done.'"

The film brought her into the fight to make abortion illegal. Her activism became atonement for her own abortion. She struggled with depression after she gave birth to her daughter Rachel. When she came home from the hospital she was unable to care for her infant. She thought she saw an eight-year-old boy standing next to her bed. It was, she is sure, the image of the son she had murdered.

"I started crying and asking God over and over again to for give me," she says. "I had murdered His child. I asked Him to forgive me over and over again. It was just incredible. I was possessed. On the fourth day I remember hearing God's voice: 'I have your baby, now get up!' It was the most incredibly freeing and peaceful moment. I got up and I showered and I ate. I just knew it was God's voice."

Weimar lesson
In the United States we have turned our backs on the working class, with much of the worst assaults, such as Nafta and welfare reform, pushed though during President Clinton's Democratic administration. We stand passively and watch an equally pernicious assault on the middle class. Anything that can be put on software, from architecture to engineering to finance, will soon be handed to workers overseas who will be paid a third of what their American counterparts receive and who will, like some 45 million Americans, have no access to health insurance or benefits.

There has been, along with the creation of an American oligarchy, a steady Weimarisation of the working class. The top 1 per cent of households in the US have more wealth than the bottom 90 per cent combined. As Plutarch reminded us: "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

The stories that believers such as Learned told me of their lives before they found Christ were heartbreaking. These chronicles were about terrible pain, severe financial difficulties, struggles with addictions, or with childhood sexual or physical abuse, profound alienation and often thoughts about suicide. They were chronicles without hope. The real world, the world of facts and dispassionate intellectual inquiry, the world where all events, news and information were not filtered through this comforting ideological prism, the world where they were left out to dry, abandoned by a government hostage to corporations and willing to tolerate obscene corporate profits, betrayed them.

They hated this world. And they willingly walked out on this world for the mythical world offered by radical preachers: a world of magic, a world where God had a divine plan for them and intervened on a daily basis to protect them and perform miracles in their lives. The rage many expressed to me towards those who challenge this belief system, to those of us who do not accept that everything in the world came into being during a single week 6,000 years ago because it says so in the Bible, was a rage born of fear, the fear of being plunged back into a reality-based world where these magical props would no longer exist, and where they would once again be adrift.

The danger of this theology of despair is that it says that nothing in the world is worth saving. It rejoices in cataclysmic destruction. It welcomes the frightening advance of global warming, the spiraling wars and violence in the Middle East and the poverty and neglect that have blighted American urban and rural landscapes as encouraging signs that the end of the world is close. Those who cling to this magical belief, which is a bizarre form of spiritual Darwinism, will be raptured upwards while the rest of us will be tormented with horrors by a warrior Christ and finally extinguished. The obsession with apocalyptic violence is an obsession with revenge. It is what the world, and we who still believe it is worth saving, deserve.

Those who lead the movement give their followers moral license to direct this rage and yearning for violence against all who refuse to submit to the movement, from liberals and "secular humanists", to "nominal Christians", intellectuals, gays and lesbians, to Muslims. The leaders of the Christian right, from James Dobson to Pat Robertson, call for a theocratic state that will, if it comes to pass, bear within it many of the traits of classical fascism.

All radical movements need a crisis or a prolonged period of instability to achieve power. We are not in a period of crisis now. But another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, a series of huge environmental disasters or an economic meltdown will hand to these radicals the opening they seek.

Manipulating our fear and anxiety, promising to make us safe and secure, giving us the assurance that they can vanquish the forces that mean to do us harm, these radicals, many of whom have achieved powerful positions in the executive and legislative branches of government, as well as the military, will ask us only to surrender our rights, to pass them the unlimited power they need to battle the forces of darkness. They will have behind them tens of millions of angry, disenfranchised Americans longing for revenge and yearning for a mythical utopia, Americans who embraced a theology of despair because we offered them nothing else.

Chris Hedges, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and Pulitzer Prize-winning ex-foreign correspondent for the New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: the Christian right and the war on America" (Jonathan Cape, £12.99)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 01:48 pm
xingu, Good article, and it is "related."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:58 pm
dyslexia wrote:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found.

Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure.

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.

"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported.
.........


Even working a minimum wage job at $5.15 per hour earns around $10,712.00 per year. Subtract 7.5% for SS and Medicare, which is around $800.00, so round off to around $10,000. Then with a spouse and 2 children, they get over $4,000 in earned income credits, etc., thanks to George Bush, and the least any able bodied person should earn per year is around $14,000. By the way, they pay no income tax, so the $4,000 is money over and above what was paid in, again thanks to George Bush "who only takes care of the rich."

Now I can only guess why someone is earning $5,000 or $9,000 per year. But if they are disabled, somebody can perhaps fill me in on this, but they should draw anywhere from a few hundred per month to maybe a couple thousand per month or so. Also, unemployment benefits will earn less, but still should be a few hundred to over a thousand per month, I'm not sure about this, I am not familiar with it.

Add into the mix other programs, such as food stamps, wick, and other things, and equivalent income is more than the numbers show.

This all presumes just one wage earner, but if both spouses work, and each still work at just minimum wage jobs, they earn well over 20,000 after the tax credits are applied. Obviously this is not great if you live in New York City or San Francisco, but hopefully people with no skills have enough sense to go somewhere that has lower living costs.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 09:24 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
xingu, Good article, and it is "related."


cicerone, the collapse of the family structure is hurting this country tremendously, in many ways, and one is economically.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/images/bg1283cht1.gif

If a girl has 2 kids before hardly getting out of high school, maybe without a high school diploma, has no skills, and no spouse, how in the world does she expect to support and raise the children? This is what I am talking about when I mentioned the word, "citizenship." As a society, we need to once again recognize this as important. You have some parents trying to teach it. But you do not hear the drumbeat for this from society, in the media, in the schools, in movies, on tv. The messages heard are have fun, do your thing, and as xingu's article claims, religion is dangerous and only is meant to make you feel guilty. I have never heard more hogwash in my life than I am hearing recently.

Poverty rates among single parent families is far, far higher than for 2 parent families. So obviously the problem is as much or more cultural as it is economic. This site shows that as of 1998, single parent familes were more than 4 times more likely to be under the poverty line than 2 parent families.

http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/sawhill/20010522_charts.pdf

So some people on this forum can make fun of religion and morals all you want, but if a religion helps society hang together, I am all for it. I don't have to agree with the religion, but if it teaches responsibility, citizenship, and obeying the laws, I am in favor of it.

P.S. to xingu and cicerone, I believe women feel guilt over abortion whether anyone told them to or not. It is inescapable. It is in us as human beings, not to destroy our own offspring. Denial does not make natural feelings go away.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:05 pm
okie, Many people including grown ups make bad decisions about finances. That you wish to throw in the mix your rhetoric about "a girl with two kids" is not germane based on the simple fact that under Bush, the middle class and the poor lost buying power, and more fell into deep poverty.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:28 pm
It is very germane, cicerone. Look at the trends, and the statistics, especially the site I posted with the statistics on single parent families. And even the well to do, many, many people that make over 100,000 per year go bankrupt. So is the government supposed to give them enough money to live the lifestyle they want, even if it exceeds 100,000? At the same time, there are people that make almost nothing that end up millionaires. A couple of years ago, I remember an article about a woman that worked as a secretary, barely earning a little more than minimum wage all her life, she started with nothing, but when she died, her estate was worth over a million.

My point is that as a society, we are forgetting to appreciate what we have and to take care of what we have. I just talked to an elderly lady today that lived through the depression, and she emphatically says society is extremely spoiled, and most people have alot more money now than ever, we are living higher than ever, and that even the poor spend like drunken sailors, which explains why many don't have a dime.

The mindset on this forum for some is to complain, complain, and complain some more. Maybe its time to look in the mirror? After all, there has to be a reason why millions are coming to this country. I don't see millions migrating to Mexico or somewhere else.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:34 pm
Exactly how do you propose to change this trend?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:30 am
I don't look for it to change any time soon. What I am talking about starts in the heart, and it isn't something that can be forced on people. More individual responsibility and citizenship, plus the moral gumption to accomplish it is what this country needs right now, and right now it isn't honored and respected as it once was. Instead, it is criticized, impuned, and made fun of.

http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/PovertyintheUnitedStates.html

Another factor that may be influencing this problem, which we have not discussed, is the high school drop-out rate. And of course this factor results from other factors, such as the rise of single parent households. The truth is that high school dropouts cannot expect to escape poverty very easily or soon. Graduation rate in 1990 was 71%, which dropped to 67% by 2000, but is now back to 69.7% in 2004. Factors such as these may have a delayed effect upon poverty rates for the years following.

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?year=2000&level=nation&mode=data&state=0&submeasure=36
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 11:49 am
Quote:
So is the government supposed to give them enough money to live the lifestyle they want, even if it exceeds 100,000?


No. The government should provide them with a most mean and unpleasant lifestyle - one decided to keep them alive at the most basic level, no more.

The gov't has a specific interest in keeping people from starving to death (helps avoid crime), and that's it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 11:55 am
Oh, so you admit it can't be "forced" on people. Well, gues what? That's a world-wide problem, because it's a human problem.

What you don't seem to understand is that with five percent of the world's population, we are the "richest."

Humanity cries out for helping those that need help - especially the children in our country. If you don't understand these basic human needs, your politics only shows how blind you are. Helping all of our children today, helps the health and economy of our future.

The rich don't need any more money or luxuries; the country that offered them all the opportunities to create wealth also has a responsibility to return some of that wealth to help those in need. It will benefit their own children and grandchildren to live a healthier and prosperous life.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 11:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
So is the government supposed to give them enough money to live the lifestyle they want, even if it exceeds 100,000?


No. The government should provide them with a most mean and unpleasant lifestyle - one decided to keep them alive at the most basic level, no more.

The gov't has a specific interest in keeping people from starving to death (helps avoid crime), and that's it.

Careful! "Keeping people from starving to death" means a beans-and-rice diet or similar, served in a mass canteen to people living in six-bed, 200 square foot rooms. This level of subsistence is cheaper than even the meager payments by the US welfare system.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 11:59 am
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
So is the government supposed to give them enough money to live the lifestyle they want, even if it exceeds 100,000?


No. The government should provide them with a most mean and unpleasant lifestyle - one decided to keep them alive at the most basic level, no more.

The gov't has a specific interest in keeping people from starving to death (helps avoid crime), and that's it.

Careful! "Keeping people from starving to death" means a beans-and-rice diet or similar, served in a mass canteen to people living in six-bed, 200 square foot rooms. This level of subsistence is cheaper than even the meager payments by the US welfare system.


Yeah. It's better than letting people starve to death, and the contention seems to be that welfare equals socialism, so; the conditions you describe are significantly better than living on the streets...

I don't wish this on anyone, but advocate it as a last resort; I think that there are plenty on the other side of the fence who would argue that the state has no compelling interest in this matter whatsoever...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 12:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The gov't has a specific interest in keeping people from starving to death (helps avoid crime), and that's it.

Cycloptichorn


I wasn't aware that anyone is. In fact children are getting fatter aren't they? And if people are starving, bring back the "poorhouses." That should fix the problem.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 12:07 pm
okie wrote: In fact children are getting fatter aren't they?

okie is hopeless trapped in his politics.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 12:09 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The gov't has a specific interest in keeping people from starving to death (helps avoid crime), and that's it.

Cycloptichorn


I wasn't aware that anyone is. In fact children are getting fatter aren't they? And if people are starving, bring back the "poorhouses." That should fix the problem.


Getting fatter isn't a sign of health. It is a sign of poor health. You can get fat and starve to death, or more accurately suffer great health problems due to malnutrition, at the same time.

Surprising to me that you're still pushing this ridiculous line.

Define 'poorhouse.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 12:11 pm
c.i. wrote :

Quote:
Many people including grown ups make bad decisions about finances


of course , and even large corporations make plenty of bad financial decisions . and it's often the ordinary citizens who are made to suffer for it . i believe i've heard some on a2k say : "the employer doesn't owe them anything " .
there are also plenty of cases - not restricted to the united states btw - where large and profitable corporations are lining their pockets with GOVERNMENT (read : taxpayers) money/subsidies .

i always get a thrill Rolling Eyes when i hear :
"the canadian government (fill in as required : prime minister , ottawa etc.) has decided to contribute $ x,xxx,xxx to the project" .
it should really be : "canadian taxpayers are subsidizing the project to the tune of $ x,xxx.xxx " . Mad
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 12:16 pm
hbg, I tried to make my statement "all inclusive." Wink Thanks for expanding on that idea.

Some people see things in myopia; their ability to see the big picture is missing, and their sophistry to specifics seems to escape them. They think it supports their position.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:54 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Getting fatter isn't a sign of health. It is a sign of poor health. You can get fat and starve to death, or more accurately suffer great health problems due to malnutrition, at the same time.

Surprising to me that you're still pushing this ridiculous line.

Define 'poorhouse.'

Cycloptichorn


cyclops, I find your statement that you can be fat and starve to death rather humorous.

About poorhouses, look them up, as they used to be government supported places where people could go and live if they simply could not figure out how to make it on their own. They were usually farms with living quarters for a number of people where they could work and then receive the necessary food and clothing necessary to survive pretty well, of course without luxuries.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 05:40:36