Posts tagged Poverty
Posts tagged Poverty
Seriously. Movies.com has the story:
George Lucas’ rich neighbors don’t want him building a movie studio in their backyard. His response is the best thing he’s done in years.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, for four decades Lucas has owned a large swath of land in Marin County in the North San Francisco Bay and has spent the past few years trying to transform the ranch on it into a massive, nearly 300,000 square foot, state-of-the-art movie studio complete with day care center, restaurant, gym and a 200-car garage. His neighbors, however, have rejected it every step of the way. Despite the promise of bringing $300 million worth of economic activity to the area, the already-well off neighbors are worried about years’ worth of construction activity and the additional foot traffic it will bring into their neighborhood once completed.
So what is George Lucas going to do with his property now that he’s tired of his rich neighbors putting up a not-in-my-backyard stink? He wants to transform the property into low-income housing, naturally, ending their official statement with this zinger, “If everyone feels that housing is less impactful on the land, then we are hoping that people who need it the most will benefit.”
He’s working with the Marin Community Foundation to instead construct affordable housing for either low-income families or seniors living on small, fixed incomes. In order to smooth along the development, he’s already given them all of the pricey technical studies and land surveys Lucasfilm spent years conducting. And we think that’s just great. Because if there’s one thing rich people will hate more than having movie magic made in their backyard, it’s poor people moving in.
Dude. I take back every terrible thing I have ever said about George Lucas. Well, almost. There’s the whole trilogy issue, but really… Bravo, sir.
I do believe he just called anyone who’s not successful a loser. Exactly what is your definition of success? Those in the top 20%? The top 1%? Those not benefiting from government programs?
If the last point is the case, I’d like to introduce John Boehner to one of the biggest welfare queens in existence:
Meet Willard Mitt “Mittens” Romney. He’s used government programs and loopholes to reduce his taxes for years.
But that’s okay, right? Because at least he’s NOT POOR! What losers. Side note: You just know Boehner spells it “loosers” </sarcasm>
This is why we can’t have nice things.
In not-shocking news, Mitt Romney is a hypocritical dick:
Mitt Romney views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn’t be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. “[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work,” Romney said of moms on TANF.
Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal “heartless,” but he argued that the women would be better off having “the dignity of work” — a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.
"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’"
Kind of makes his outrage over Hillary Rosen seem even more ridiculous. Instead of focusing on Rosen, I suggest we look at the party whose policies consistently hurt families (except wealthy ones), and the party whose members overwhelmingly opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Hint: They’re running Mitt Romney…
Rebloggable by request:
But what if I don’t want to pay more taxes to pay for other people to have health care. I keep myself healthy and work hard to keep my money. MY MONEY. I don’t care if other people get sick because they should take of themselves. We have emergency rooms. If we make it so people can go to the doctor every time they sneeze they will. I have good insurance because I pay for it.
You must be referring to this post.
Congrats to you for having good insurance, good health, a job, and cash money! I made something in your honor:
Don’t you feel good now?
I’d be interested to know your criteria for deserving individuals and non-deserving individuals. Or not. You know why? Because I believe proper health care is a human right period. Even for adorably selfish people like yourself.
I’m not even going to thoroughly debunk this because it’s ridiculous. Not everyone is born with health, not everyone has money, not everyone has a job, and not everyone has insurance. People don’t just get sick because they don’t take care of themselves.
If everyone uses the emergency room, costs go up for everyone. Plus, the ER is not for management of chronic conditions or illness. It’s for acute emergencies. A diabetic would not be well-served by an ER. ERs are overcrowded and understaffed as is - your idea makes that catastrophic.
Tell you what you’re supposed to do: You pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you little supposed self-reliant miscreant, and you buy yourself a private island. That way, you don’t have to suffer the indignities of breathing the same air as the plebs, and we don’t have to suffer you.
From their March 2011 statement on Planned Parenthood, also found in a message to a questioner roughly 18 months ago:
Early screening through mammograms and education is critical to end the suffering from this disease: 98 percent of women treated for early stage breast cancer, before it spreads, are alive five years later. The widespread use of mammography and heightened public awareness of breast cancer both contribute to these favorable statistics.
And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.
These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.
As long as there is a need for health care for these women, Komen Affiliates will continue to fund the facilities that meet that need.
The link to the release is http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=16162. It redirects to the homepage for Susan G. Komen. Lest we think this is an archiving issue, I searched for Planned Parenthood. The site has been scrubbed of any mention of the organization:
When I clicked through those links, there’s nothing. The suggested result also redirects.
Here’s what happened when I did an advanced Google search of the site: http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=8624&terms=Planned%20AND%20Parenthood
Note there’s nothing about Planned Parenthood on the site.
They’ve not only cut off Planned Parenthood, they’ve chosen to forget they ever existed. Again, I donated to Planned Parenthood here. Their new VP of Public Policy, Karen Handel, vowed to end funding at Planned Parenthood when she ran for governor of Georgia. I suppose this is the next best thing. If you donate, ask the thank you card be sent here:
Karen Handel, Senior Vice President of Public Policy
Susan G. Komen for the Cure® Advocacy Alliance
901 E Street N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20004
Or send her an email at email@example.com
I’m beyond disgusted. This is giving in to people who care more for a clump of cells than a woman’s life. In 2010, Susan G. Komen claimed they would give funds to Planned Parenthood as long as health care needs existed for poor and minority individuals in need. As far as I can tell, in 2012, those needs still exist.
Shame on them for caving to right-wing bullies instead of caring for the health of those who need services like Planned Parenthood the most.
A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.
However, people’s perception of why the rich become rich has not changed much. Pew Research points out similar opinions to the ones below were found in 2008:
Pew uncovered one very interesting point:
The biggest increases in perceptions of class conflicts occurred among political liberals and Americans who say they are not affiliated with either major party. In each group the proportion who say there are major disagreements between rich and poor Americans increased by more than 20 percentage points since 2009.
Emphasis mine. Could this mean independents could be an even bigger influence than usual in 2012? And what does that mean for both parties? Maybe talking about jobs and the economy isn’t the worst move… The GOP’s constant denial of the existence of class warfare and incongruent insistence President Obama sparked it may also backfire.
Just in time for the holidays, the City of Ft. Lauderdale has come up with a way to help the homeless who have relatives in other parts of the country who are willing to take care of them.
Tuesday, the Ft. Lauderdale city commission approved a $25,000 program which will buy them one-way bus tickets out of town. The program won’t cost taxpayers a dime. It’s being paid for by the Florida Law Enforcement Trust Fund, which is money confiscated from criminals.
Vice Mayor Bobby DuBose was the only commissioner to vote against the program, saying he believes that there are other ways the money could be used to help the homeless. He said he was also concerned that some homeless people may take advantage of the program and use it as a cheap vacation.
So this is one way on not dealing with a problem…
I love the charge homeless people might take a cheap vacation. It’s just such a dick thing to say, particularly after you point out the money could be used in other ways to deal with homelessness. Right now, it seems the two ways communities deal with homeless are either criminalizing it via laws regarding loitering, etc. or by sweeping them from the community.
Homeless people are still people. I’ve nearly been there. We still hover close to the edge. Many of our homeless are veterans, GLBTQ youth, mentally ill, etc. - or people who’ve fallen on rough times in a terrible economy.
You don’t lose your humanity when you lose your home. How hard is that to understand?
I can’t. I just can’t.
Why is it so easy to believe every single person in poverty - millions of Americans - are completely lazy and don’t want to work, yet it’s so incomprehensible that maybe the richest 1% are just a little too greedy and are getting coddled by Congress?!
Someone answer that. Please. Use bootstrap references and so help me Jeebus, I will reach through the internet to high five your face…
The red and blue is not be taken as representative of political party. However, it IS an interesting breakdown of where the interests of the US Congress fall. Alan Grayson has also pointed to lobbying influence as well. At a 2010 conference, Grayson said, “We’re now in a situation where a lobbyist can walk into my office…and say, ‘I’ve got five million dollars to spend, and I can spend it for you or against you. Which do you prefer?’”
Much has also been made of Occupy Wall Street promoters like Michael Moore being in the 1%, so why don’t they just give away all of their money and make everyone equal, etc… I’m tired of this strawman counter. That’s like telling a group of physicians concerned about the situation in Appalachia regarding medical care to stop advocating for change, and to instead donate all their time, money, and supplies to fixing it, or else they are an illegitimate organization and have no right to bitch.
Moore has given generously to charity, including 60% of the profits from Fahrenheit 9/11, he donates half of his royalties from books sold at local bookstores to local libraries (plus the bookstores running the events have all agreed to donate $1 from their sales price) at each stop on his recent book tour, he works with several progressive organizations and with unions, and began the non-profit, mostly volunteer-run Traverse City Film Festival in Michigan - among other efforts. Here, he further explains his thoughts on charity to Sean Hannity.
So let’s pretend for a moment that the rich redistribute to the jobless of their own free will. Then what? Do jobs magically appear out of thin air? The need never re-occurs?
Moore explains his viewpoint well on being a member of the 1% and fighting for the 99% in a post entitled "Life Among The 1%" [emphasis mine]:
"How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!" It’s like asking: "You’ve never had sex with another man - how can you be for gay marriage?!" I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: "Hey! You’re not black! You’re not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!"). It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. "Kanye West makes millions! What’s he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!" Exactly - he’s down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.
Anyhow, money is not electing Michael Moore. However, money is electing those who set the policies leading to such wealth disparity in this country. We must pay attention to those who’ve sold us out and continued the same policies since before many in my generation were even born. Campaign finance reform is crucial, and perhaps we should begin rethinking this whole neoliberal, late capitalism thing.
If your biggest bone to pick with Occupy Wall Street is that Michael Moore is advocating for it, we’re well on our way to winning.
Rick Perry, speaking in Iowa on teachers, making money, and why the Occupy Wall Street folks just don’t have enough “passion.”
*Sigh* Fucking hell.
Actually, you know what? That’s not true. I don’t hate the people freezing their asses off occupying Wall Street while Rick Perry sits in his ill-fitting suit of smug and remarks that money is overrated. It’s not about people having too much money. It’s about a significant amount of people not having any money in order to enrich a very small amount of those who already do.
Your pithy little admonishments to those at Occupy Wall Street to find their passion is completely and one hundred percent intellectually disingenuous. Many of those folks followed their passions, got a degree, and can’t find a goddamn job. They’re saddled with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt after being told by snide little bastards like yourself to pursue that piece of paper representing their passion and employment prospects. My passion doesn’t pay the rent, and the utility companies don’t take passion as currency.
Money is only irrelevant when you make a living wage and aren’t one missed paycheck away from homelessness.
Fuck you with all the fucks I have left to give today.
From The Maddow Blog:
This sign - and commentary - is hanging outside a food pantry in Manhattan’s East Village. Maybe it’s time we did something about the economy.
Food banks all over the country are seeing record demand and having difficulty keeping the shelves stocked. I don’t know about you, but I’m taking a few cans to my local food banks this week. And there’s this:
The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached a record 45.345 million in July, the government said. The number was 0.4 percent higher than the previous month and 8.4 percent more than a year earlier.
Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program had set records every month since December 2008. Texas had the most food-stamp recipients in July, 4.051 million.
A record 1 in 5 people in the US receive federal assistance to feed themselves once WIC is factored in. The average monthly allotment per household is $283.68. Of course, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) thinks the program is out of control. Here’s what he said in an interview with ABC News:
"Well, look, do you think there are four times as many people that need food stamps today as they did in 2001? This year, they are proposing another 14 percent increase in food stamps without any real reform to understand how it is that it surged so dramatically. We cannot do this. We don’t have the money. If Congress doesn’t understand that we can’t continue to double the food stamp program every three years, they don’t understand how deeply we are impacted by the debt. The debt is already pulling down economic growth, costing jobs. We need people working with jobs, not receiving food stamps."
The past year was an excellent one for Sen. Sessions. His net worth increased 124% in 2010 - raising him from millionaire to multimillionaire - which is likely why he said it was "rather pathetic" to expect multimillionaires to shoulder a little more of the burden. Meanwhile, in his state of Alabama, 36% of people receive food stamps and the unemployment rate is 9.8%.
Yes, we need to have people with jobs - though Sessions voted against the jobs bill - and I have a hint as to the why this “surge” occurred: We have a government, specifically Congress, that cares more for dick waving contests and petty infighting than giving a damn that the food stamp usage rate has dramatically risen. American families are going hungry while Congress collectively twiddles their thumbs or butts heads over to what degree the richest 1% deserve to be subsidized.
American exceptionalism? How about being the most unequal industrialized country? How’s that for number one? This is unsustainable and unconscionable. Period.
Wall Street denizens mock Occupy Wall Street protesters by sipping champagne. Really. Gawker first discussed this with a posting about the Facebook event trying to organize the upper crust:
As the first week of the #occupywallstreet protest against corporate stuff draws to a close, some classy capitalists have decided to dust off their favorite Nixon-era jargon and hold a champagne-soaked counter-protest of their own. Free laxative-enriched muffins for all “hippies,” LOL.
A “pro-business Democrat” tipster sent us some screenshots of the Facebook event page for today’s corporate counter-protest, titled “Anti Hippy Protester Champagne Toast on Wall Street.”
Well, here’s the video. Police brutality, counter-protesting with champagne toasts… Who says there’s a class war? Nothing to see here, folks. </sarcasm>
Republican frontrunner Rick Perry has put his economic record as Texas governor at the heart of his presidential nomination campaign, but a report has painted a stark picture of rising unemployment and spiralling poverty in the state.
The policy paper, published by the Austin-based non-partisan Center for Public Policy Priorities, said poverty in Texas was currently higher than the rest of the US and was growing faster.
The paper said poverty rates in Texas had jumped from 17.3% in 2009 to 18.4% in 2010, and compared them to figures for the US of 14.3% in 2009, rising to 15.1% in 2010. That suggests there are currently around 4.6m Texans living in poverty, which is currently defined as an income of $22,113 a year for a family of four.
Color me not shocked. The job creation in Texas was also to due to stimulus funds - so federal dollars. And yet, he has the gumption to oppose President Obama’s jobs plan.
*drumroll* And the heartless comment of the week award goes to…
Last week’s award was on the same story. This comment is especially terrible though.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
I would like to point out that the author of this comment is 17. So I’m sure she’s paid quite a bit in taxes, no? Whatever she’s paid, she wants them back.
As for me, I would love for my tax dollars to pay for those who can’t afford health care or dental care. I prefer that versus paying for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would love to pay for higher education for my fellow citizens in this country instead of paying for further weapons development and deployment by private contractors.
You point to the military as a specific example as a government program that’s somehow A-ok. Did you know that your tax dollars completely subsidize the medical and dental care of military members, their families and veterans? The best access to medical care I have ever had was when I was in the military.
Being healthy is a privilege? Well, here’s where you’re getting closer to correct, though not for the reasons you think. There’s many, many people who work hard, yet can’t afford treatment of any kind because they don’t make enough money. There’s a direct correlation between health, quality of live, and income level. The more cash money you have, the more likely you are to be healthy and able to have access to medical and dental care. So only the privileged are assured of being healthy.
Thomas Jefferson compared individual heath to a society’s liberty, writing, “Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed in you, I imagine.
However, Karl Marx would not be shocked by your callousness. Marx wrote, “Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.” It’s probably folks with similar beliefs to yours that inspired Marx.
You’re only 17. You have time to for your bubble to burst. And it’s fairly likely it will.