[Outcast_Searcher]

So the two sides are MILES apart and show NO sign of any willingness to work toward ANY kind of compromise whatsoever. And this general trend has been going on for at least as long as the "war on poverty" in America.

Thats not really true. The "war on poverty" was started by LBJ in the late 1960s. When the republicans took over Congress in the 1990s and Clinton was president they worked together to reform welfare and actually added a work requirement and lifetime limits on benefits. As a result the welfare rolls shrunk.

I agree with your post generally, Planet. However, I think we have a semantics issue on my point about the trends, long term. Yes, you are correct, there was a VERY positive "blip" in the 90's with Clinton and the GOP actually working together. Reforming welfare to add a workfare component was a very positive thing (and would have been lambasted by the left if a GOP president had done the same thing).

However, we are back to business as usual, led by BOTH sides -- Obama redistributionism without regard to limits or common sense, and things like the (I'm blaming the GOP here, though they were aided and abetted by the left) unpaid for Medicare part "D" benefit - with rules so byzantine that ONLY congress could have actually had the temerity to pass such a mess. (Oh wait, Obamacare is much worse in that regard).

So I was talking long term and I stand by my assertion that looking at our mess today (with your foodstamp graph as a good example) that the bad trends ARE worsening at an alarming rate. A "blip", sadly, does not a long term trend make, and the overall "war on poverty" timeframe is, tragically, as you stated, over 50 years now, with no sign of ever ending, IMO.

[Plantagenet]

I was talking long term and I stand by my assertion that looking at our mess today (with your foodstamp graph as a good example) that the bad trends ARE worsening at an alarming rate. A "blip", sadly, does not a long term trend make, and the overall "war on poverty" timeframe is, tragically, as you stated, over 50 years now, with no sign of ever ending, IMO.

I agree, Outcast, that the trends are all bad.

I retain hope that bipartisan cooperation to deal with the big issues is possible. For instance, we came very close to having a biparitsan "grand bargain" between dems and repubs in 2012 that would've raised taxes and reined in spending to start cutting the deficit, until Obama kiboshed the deal at the last moment, so cooperation on big issues is still theoretically possible.

Lets see what happens after the elections as the need to deal with the "fiscal cliff" arises.

[evilgenius]

Unfortunately, Bloomberg's ban on large soft drinks will probably do more to alleviate poor health, in NY at least, than Obamacare. The scaled down solution seems logically to do with preventative medicine, and a ballsy decision about end of life care that is not being discussed.

[evilgenius]

Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs, ESPECIALLY when I specifically mentioned potentially having the (truly) poor be exempt if society agreed to that is an example of hard left extremism. (i.e. there never is enough redisribution, and personal responsibility NEVER comes into it).

It's very true I introduced this almost entirely as a left-wing thought experiment. I thought that was the best way to introduce the woman's example, but I am actually much more middle of the road than that. That being said I like your idea about everyone making do with less, with the caveat for the truly poor. It galls me to go around with my $20 per month pay-as-you-go phone only to see people claiming to be less well off (I don't make much money) with the latest 4G thing because, 'they have to have it'. I have a flat screen monitor for my computer. I don't have a TV. I drive an old car, and have had to do a lot of work on it, but I do my own work.

Basically, I'm driving at what deflation demands, that everybody get by on less. Debt has enabled prices to rise beyond what people have to spend out of what they make purely in wages. It has also enabled the expectation of return on investment to follow suit. Right now I think it is becoming obvious, not least by the number of homeless, that boots on the ground money is drying up. I don't think that markets have necessarily realized that return on investment has to undergo a similar reversal. For all the woman's talk of trying to ensure her return on investment by globalizing, she is failing to see the obvious: she won't get there by lowering wages that dramatically because it will only cause a spiral.

[vision-master]

Unfortunately, Bloomberg's ban on large soft drinks will probably do more to alleviate poor health, in NY at least, than Obamacare. The scaled down solution seems logically to do with preventative medicine, and a ballsy decision about end of life care that is not being discussed.

discuss then.......

[rangerone314]

Anyone think that the SNAP monthly data which should be out in a day or two, will see a rise to nearly 47 million? I'm betting on about 46.8 million at least.

[chris89]

Chris, and I never said that ANYONE should starve -- or even be cold, hungry or without crucial medical care. Whether the number is 1 million or 5 million, I believe all BUT the far right are willing to help those people short term, especially if longer term those capable of it will make an EFFORT to improve their situation.

1). I said that if society could agree on it I was just fine with exempting the objective poor (i.e. "legitimately poor and hungry") from making the sacrifices I think EVERYBODY else should make.

2). It's the other 40 or 45 million (or whatever the number is -- it certainly seems like a large majority (according to empical data and what one observes year after year)) who DO have the pile of irresponsible expenses that incense much of the more responsible middle class who is asked to pay for their bad habits, and by the far left who claims such payments are NEVER enough (even though we are essentially bankrupt).

....

So, if we could fix the healthcare issue via SOME "reasonable" form of socialized medicine (perhaps looking to several examples in the first world that actually work reasonably well over all), that fixes the BIG issue that people really do have little control over -- especially the random catastrophic health events that could hit anyone at almost any time -- that would solve a huge problem for everyone who isn't rich. (Although it's messy, I'll call Obamacare a good start with good intentions).

So THEN if we could come up with some sort of "reasonable" definition of what (to use your words) "legitimate poor and hungry Americans" are -- and work to ensure THEY are not left poor and hungry -- we have solved the bulk of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Sure there are details (should they do public service for their benefits if they are healthy? How do we get them (re)trained so they can get decent work down the road? etc), but that would hit the big picture.

The problem is -- we can never get CLOSE to that. The far right wants to lump ALL the "poor" into the "NOT legitimate" bucket and cut off access to care. The far left wants to lump EVERYONE who doesn't have (essentially) every creature comfort they want -- despite how irrational or irresponsible their behavior is -- into the "poor" and demand we all pay to take care of them (and they will never ever define how much is "enough").

So the two sides are MILES apart and show NO sign of any willingness to work toward ANY kind of compromise whatsoever. And this general trend has been going on for at least as long as the "war on poverty" in America.

I don't see how we fix it. You and I can have an honest conversation and admit that neither side's position is completely reasonable (or frankly, even close to reasonable). However -- we aren't trying to get re-elected. Meanwhile, the objectively poor suffer, and we are going bankrupt as a nation, and both trends are getting worse at a frightening rate.

And I don't see EITHER side actually doing anything meaningful to fix the overall problem, regardless of who gets elected.

I appreciate the reply. I think the disagreement is to do with where we're starting out from. I see your solution as purely hypothetical -- and I know you do too as you've alluded many times that there will never be the required consensus or cooperation. But the reason I think it's hypothetical is because even if that consensus existed and your plan was put into action, virtually nothing would be solved.

I say that because I look at pie charts of the US budget and my eye is immediately drawn to the big military slice (or rather the entire pie, minus the tiny social welfare slice). Then I look at the distribution of wealth and it seems to match-up with most Occupy Wall Street placards which go on about statistics like 1% own 40% of the wealth.

This kind of stuff jars with what your saying, not because I think you're wrong or immoral in your deductions, but because I don't see how what you're saying can possibly be the point. I can see why lazy scroungers are annoying, but I don't think lazy scroungers and their social welfare programs are bringing the US to its knees. Banks, yes. The military industrial complex, yes. Lazy scroungers and their payouts (mathmatically speaking) don't seem to me to be even a tenth of the problem.

That's why I think before looking at the lazy scroungers, we should look at the 1% holding onto 40% of the wealth. I know lots of rich people have worked hard to get where they are but in my mind there's a big difference between earning a living (which is admirable) and gaming someone else's living, or rather millions of other peoples' livings. I don't think it's physically possible to "earn" a billion dollars. I honestly don't think there are enough hours of hard-work in a day. I'm not convinced it's even possible to really "earn" a million dollars. There has to be a point where so many people in full-time work are on foodstamps and so few billionaires have so much, that you start to ask what sort of a system is it that creates this kind of imbalance. Is Mitt Romney really working that much harder than a Walmart employee? With an honest asnwer to that question, surely you have to ask whether cutting a bit of everything to do with government is really an even handed approach to dealing with these two groups?

[Plantagenet]

Is Mitt Romney really working that much harder than a Walmart employee?

People aren't paid solely on the basis of how hard they work. People's earnings are based on other factors as well.

For instance, Lawyers, Surgeons, Scientists, Engineers, MBAs and other professionals earn more than Wal-Mart greeters because they have specialized skills. A Wal-Mart greeter can work really hard, and smile really big, and put in overtime, but he will never earn what a doctor earns.

People also earn more money when they have more responsibility. For example, President Obama earns more than VP Biden because he is responsible for running the country, even though Biden had many years more experience in government. You could look at Obama and say he isn't working very hard at being president because of all the hours he spends golfing and campaigning, but even though you could find other many other people in government who work much harder than Obama, he still has the incredible responsibility of being president so he still earns the highest salary in government.

Cheers!

[Lore]

Is Mitt Romney really working that much harder than a Walmart employee?

People aren't paid solely on the basis of how hard they work. People's earnings are based on other factors as well.

For instance, Lawyers, Surgeons, Scientists, Engineers, MBAs and other professionals earn more than Wal-Mart greeters because they have specialized skills. A Wal-Mart greeter can work really hard, and smile really big, and put in overtime, but he will never earn what a doctor earns.

People also earn more money when they have more responsibility. For example, President Obama earns more than VP Biden because he is responsible for running the country, even though Biden had many years more experience in government. You could look at Obama and say he isn't working very hard at being president because of all the hours he spends golfing and campaigning, but even though you could find other many other people in government who work much harder than Obama, he still has the incredible responsibility of being president so he still earns the highest salary in government.

Cheers!

Well we know Mitt can't be in it for the money since the President only earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment. He made almost that much in speaking engagements for a year.

The golf bit is just misdirection. Where was your indignation when the last Bush spent over a year out of his term as President at his place in TX? Averaging out Obama's time on the golf course is just 2.5 outings per month.

[Outcast_Searcher]

This kind of stuff jars with what your saying, not because I think you're wrong or immoral in your deductions, but because I don't see how what you're saying can possibly be the point.
...
Lazy scroungers and their payouts (mathmatically speaking) don't seem to me to be even a tenth of the problem.

That's why I think before looking at the lazy scroungers, we should look at the 1% holding onto 40% of the wealth. I know lots of rich people have worked hard to get where they are but in my mind there's a big difference between earning a living (which is admirable) and gaming someone else's living, or rather millions of other peoples' livings. I don't think it's physically possible to "earn" a billion dollars. I honestly don't think there are enough hours of hard-work in a day. I'm not convinced it's even possible to really "earn" a million dollars. There has to be a point where so many people in full-time work are on foodstamps and so few billionaires have so much, that you start to ask what sort of a system is it that creates this kind of imbalance. Is Mitt Romney really working that much harder than a Walmart employee? With an honest asnwer to that question, surely you have to ask whether cutting a bit of everything to do with government is really an even handed approach to dealing with these two groups?

Thanks Chris. I appreciate your reply too, especially now that I see more of where you're coming from. (It's really nice to actually have a productive conversation and gain insight into a complex issue from another person's perspective on the internet, amidst so much "angry shouting" that goes on ad nauseum -- (whether we actually end up agreeing or "solving anything" or not)).

You bring up difficult issues. To me, at the end of the day life will never be fair. For whatever reasons, there will always be a certain degree of inequity -- unless the government runs everything and dictates all resources by fiat -- and clearly THAT system has plenty of problems as well (IMO).

So, I strongly suspect the real key is WHAT is a "reasonable" balance? And of course, how do we reach some sort of level of social agreement about it?

One person I really like who discusses this in an intelligent and relatively balanced way (again, IMO) is Fareed Zakaria on his GPS (Global Public Square) series on CNN. He often points to models that seem to be working quite well in other countries -- often rich European or Scandanavian countries, for example. They clearly have struck much more of a balance -- and yet have some VERY rich folks. I watch some of his ideas, like on his "Putting America back to work - global perspectives" GPS special recently on CNN, and I think "WHY can't WE try some things along these lines"?

I will strongly disagree with you on one point (which Planet alluded to via productivity and knowledge allowing a highly skilled person to EARN quite a high wage rate -- a truly skilled estate lawyer, a heart surgeon, and the architect responsible for the safety of skyscraper safety come to mind as examples).
So, as someone who has personally earned a million dollars (including saving and reinvesting a huge percentage of the earnings instead of spending it) over a career -- given that in today's dollars a million dollars isn't enough to be "filthy rich" -- I do disagree with your assertion that it is "impossible" to fairly earn a million dollars. (I worked a lot of 80 hour weeks and gave up a LOT of holiday weekends, built a lot of software, and frankly, saved quite a few large corporate ASSES when they messed up databases by doing the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot, and asking me to (do the equivalent of) magically repairing the damage with no medical treatment). This was after spending my college career working my way through school and studying a LOT, instead of partying. So call me selfish or insane -- but I think I EARNED my financial independence -- and I paid plenty of taxes along the way, and still do, and have no problem with that. (I'm single and aside from charitable deductions have essentially zero tax breaks).

Now, when you scale that up and go to say a hundred million dollars or even a Warren Buffett $50 billion-ish dollars, that may be a whole other kettle of fish. Having no clue what it is like to be as smart as Buffett -- I don't feel qualified to judge someone like that, quite frankly, since by all indications he is a very moral person.

Again -- to me, the question of keeping incentives "reasonable" is key. My objection to the "scroungers" is FAR more in terms of a moral and incentive principle than the magnitude.

I'm fairly sure the far left will want to flame me now. Oh well. I honestly mean well!

[Revi]

Food stamps are a result of the way we do farming and food in this country. What percentage of people live on land and grow their own food? Very small I'm sure. We created a place where we use natural gas to make fertilizer through the Haber-Bosch process and then grow corn. This corn is used to fatten vast herds of cattle and teenagers through the use of high fructose corn syrup. There are hundreds of millions of people that are alive today because of these cheap calories. The big players get the money doled out by the government to make this happen. They wouldn't be growing as much if there wasn't anyone to feed it to. It's the big corporations that are making food. They only do it because there's money in it.

[evilgenius]

Unfortunately, Bloomberg's ban on large soft drinks will probably do more to alleviate poor health, in NY at least, than Obamacare. The scaled down solution seems logically to do with preventative medicine, and a ballsy decision about end of life care that is not being discussed.

discuss then.......

Good idea to discuss. I'll keep it within the parameters of this thread, though, not involving the overall Obamacare structure or any perceived mandates beyond preventative care.

What I was thinking was that since Obamacare expressly disallows any kind of prevention weighted plan that is light on major issue coverage, there will probably be trouble coming in the sense that people won't have the money to pay for what the system expects they pay for. Whereas it is human behavior that causes most health problems, obesity and its relationship to diabetes for instance, and good preventative care is targeted at that, then the constraint of taking a major cause of too many calories a day in people's diets is much more likely to actually be realized as a factor in their health than interaction with the health care system. People simply aren't going to have the money, or their coming up with that money will cripple the rest of the economy, to pay for the broad range coverage that the plan mandates. The prospects for choice by consumers of health care is suspect enough that preventative care is likely to be an afterthought in most broad range plans as well. Meaning that, in order to cover the catastrophic, the cheapest broad range plans are likely to skimp on preventative care. People will get the basics of it, but the basics are what is in place now and the US is full of fatties. A system that is involved enough to bring an actual change isn't likely, I think.

[evilgenius]

As for the ballsy decision. The territory is dangerous political ground. I remember when Dick Lamm tried it, and got clocked for doing so. The plain truth is that heroic efforts in the last two years of a people's lives cost a huge chunk of the total monies that go into health care on a yearly basis. In part this is a cultural thing, the bias having been toward keeping people alive at any cost. That part of it is changing, I think. What I do is related to the healthcare field. I get to see the backs of people's charts. Something I did twenty years ago allowed the same kind of access. Anecdotally, I can tell you that there are far more DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) stickers on the backs of people's charts today than there were twenty years ago, ditto for the use of palliative over heroic care. That may be the trend, but the costs are still what they are. There are other factors involved than patient side cultural bias. The healthcare establishment is also weighted toward organizing gain on its investment. The best way for them to do that is with a captive audience whether that be drug addicts, overweight people or old folks who do what they are told.

[Plantagenet]

The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase Mexican participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

“USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on their “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

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

Mexican nationals ---and Illegal aliens in general--- aren't eligible to receive US food stamps----but their US-born children are.

I saw an estimate that about half (47%?) of all illegal aliens in the US are receiving welfare checks and/or foodstamps in this fashion, but this number seems unrealistically high to me, even in this moribund Obama economy.

[rangerone314]

Curious that in an economy that is supposed to be improving, the number of people on SNAP has reached 46,681,833 (a new high) for July 2012 (data updated September 28).

Its funny how a government defines success as not failing as badly as we were last month. Its like we have a smaller deficit this year is considered a good thing. Imagine putting $2,000 on your credit card last month and this month you put on $1,900 and consider that progress.

If the government was running a foot race, and running it backwards, they would could it as progress if they are running backwards more slowly.

[Pops]

Employers don't feel any need to pay a decent wage. Mostly we don't even have "employers" any more, we have corporations, which are simply committees dedicated to making the most profit with the least responsibility. "I just own the stock, I don't make any decisions..."

So, we have increasing part time employment, because part timers don't deserve benefits. Expect a large increase in 28 hour a week jobs.

Darden Restaurants Tests Hiring Of More Part-Time Employees To Avoid Obamacare Costs

Or maybe it's time for a little unionization... Walmart worker strikes go viral, hitting 28 stores in 12 states

[evilgenius]

Employers don't feel any need to pay a decent wage. Mostly we don't even have "employers" any more, we have corporations, which are simply committees dedicated to making the most profit with the least responsibility. "I just own the stock, I don't make any decisions..."

So, we have increasing part time employment, because part timers don't deserve benefits. Expect a large increase in 28 hour a week jobs.

Darden Restaurants Tests Hiring Of More Part-Time Employees To Avoid Obamacare Costs

Or maybe it's time for a little unionization... Walmart worker strikes go viral, hitting 28 stores in 12 states

It is interesting the position employers are in and their rationale for staying the course going forward. It is largely their attitude of cutting employee costs which has come back to doom them. Henry Ford had the idea that if he paid his workers enough to buy cars, they would buy cars. Today's employers have a profit number they are trying to reach and they are willing to sacrifice employee satisfaction to reach it. The trouble is that it is not employee satisfaction they are sacrificing, it is employee capability to participate in the economy at a level that sustains the economy. In a world where interest rates are as low as they are and money is as hoarded as it is by corporations taking less profit per unit of productive capacity not only makes sense, but is the right answer for any going concern.

[Plantagenet]

Employers don't feel any need to pay a decent wage.

Its supply and demand.

Ph.d.s and computer scientists and other highly educated workers are still getting good wages.

In North Dakota, where they need workers for frakking in the Bakken, drillers, truckdrivers and laborers do darn good. Even McDonald's has had to raise its wages.

But in places with no industry and more workers than jobs, wages are going down. Adding ever more illegal aliens willing to work for low wages doesn't help.

[vision-master]

So why does 'management' earn higher slalary's than J6P. Management ppl are a dime a dozen?

[SeaGypsy]

Middle managers usually take 20-50% more as salary, but usually these days are paid on a 9-5 basis with no overtime or penalty rates. If your base rate is only $20 an hour, but you do a 12 hour Sunday on double time you have just overtaken your 'boss' at the end of the week. If you work a rotating 12 hour shift: 2 weeks on, 1 week off, on flat $25 an hour, you come home from 2 weeks with about $3500. If you get penalty rates up that to about $5k.

The city I am living in (Melbourne, Australia's second largest) has an official unemployment rate of about 6.5%. But the reality is that out of 2.2 million jobs, about a million are within a dollar or two of minimum award wage for the position. Jobs which paid well above award 3 years ago have silently slidden back. Asking for 'the going rate' (or more) sounds the death knell in a job interview, where employers prefer to select based on desperation to please as opposed to value for money.

Recent migrants differ from previous waves in that they do not pursue entitlements like overtime and penalty rates; and there are half a million of them in this city. It's a long way from dire or desperate, but it's not easy to compete with folks who are utterly obliged to work and send money home and have no awareness of worker entitlement history.