Poverty to Prosperity......

Published

Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation's gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.

...

1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the average wage but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers and nearly 10 million other low-income workers.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. We recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income families. Doing so would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty.

3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers.

4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty.

5. Create 2 million new "opportunity" housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities.

6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work.

7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state.

8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities.

9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system.

10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment.

11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services.

12. Expand and simplify the Saver's Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

Specializes in Critical Care.
I read the article and didn't think it was as alarmist as your post sounds. Doesn't sound to me like the Finnish economic infrastructure is going to be radically changing anytime soon. You may think otherwise and that's fine. I am going to sleep ok tonight either way.

I don't know about you but I don't need prosperity, at least not material prosperity. I don't feel the need for the two-car garage populated by a Bentley and a Benz, nor the 3/4-million dollar home on 100 acres of land. And I have a big issue when people start acting like toddlers saying "MINE!" and not wanting to share.

Material prosperity is just that -- materials. Things. Things that I will not be taking with me when I die. Everything I have is not really mine to begin with. So it is not that big a deal to me to be sharing tax dollars, esp if I know they are going to fund decent maternity leave. Better that than raises for overpaid Congressmen.

That is your choice. You have no right, however, to use the coercive power of gov't to impose your choice upon others. The simple act of attempting to do so makes gov't the grab bag of power. And, it makes gov't evil.

You don't advocate convincing your fellow man of your viewpoints. You advocate using the power of gov't to bully your viewpoints upon those that disagree with you, philosophically. If you can only get your point of view passed, then everybody will have no choice but to go along. You even say this directly: that you are disappointed with the amount of charity you see around you (even though Americans are the most charitable people in the world) and so, you are in favor of a gov't decree for what people will not willingly do by choice. There's a word for that, and it's tyranny.

This is not me being discivil in this debate: it is the terms of the debate. The only way to make gov't as much a power 'for the greater good' as the gov't you wish to impose is to make it a gov't that has the power to do lots of things that fall well short of 'the greater good'. Power is not neutral; it is a tool. Gov't cannot be trusted with such tools. At least, not gov'ts of free men.

FTR, the founding fathers created a republic EXACTLY to avoid that kind of majority rules, mob rule. The checks are supposed to be in place to prevent just this kind of manipulation of gov't. Our framers sought determinedly to create a gov't in a straightjacket when it comes to the exercise of power against its citizens. That straightjacket is what allowed America to take its place as the pre-eminent world power.

If you can use the gov't to beat down others with YOUR choices, then others can use the power of gov't to beat YOU down with THEIR choices.

The result: a very polarized gov't where it matters very much which party is in charge.

The gov't has no right or business to be an arbiter of any of this. Point of fact, the gov't is holding more people down in poverty, today, than the free market could liberate FROM poverty, if given a chance.

I don't share your faith in gov't. I hold faith with the common man, once liberated from the shackles of gov't. Gov't is a tool, and it has historically and inherently been a tool for tyranny.

I would rather the power of gov't be shackled than for me to be shackled TO the power of gov't. I guess it's a different philosophy.

But, Thomas Jefferson summed it up best in a quote I used earlier in this thread: a gov't free to use power for 'the greater good' is a gov't free to use power for all kinds of evil. In fact, isn't that EXACTLY what you think about the Bush Administration?

The Bush Administration is EXACTLY the gov't you have asked for: one with all sorts of power over you and your life. You just didn't count on the votes for the leader of the gov't of your choosing to be so consistently against those that share "YOUR" beliefs.

Oh, I know: 2008 will be different. No, it won't. No matter who wins, it's more of the same.

~faith,

Timothy.

oldies but goodies . . . .

"republicans believe every day is the fourth of july, but the democrats believe every day is april 15." —ronald reagan

"democrats tend to look to the government for the solution to the problem. republicans tend to look to the government as the source of the problem". . . . (unknown source but said my many).

the difference between a republican & a democrat

fred thompson and hillary clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

the republican, fred thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. he then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. she walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. she then reached into thompson's pocket and got out $20. she kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5..;)

:monkeydance:

In a democracy government is US.

I think a person who believes government cannot be helpful in promoting the general welfare should not be elected because that person will ensure that government does not solve anything.

I think the person who is willing to try to improve the general welfare will work for it and maybe succeed.

We need to fix the sewers, steam vents, bridges, levees, and other neglected public works.

I think we need to work to ensure that there is access to healthcare for all.

And an emergency hospital, EMS, and fire fighting system in every community.

Everyone needs a safe place to sleep, healthy food to eat, clean water to dring, and useful work to do.

I think government has a part in this because the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Specializes in Critical Care.
In a democracy government is US.

I think a person who believes government cannot be helpful in promoting the general welfare should not be elected because that person will ensure that government does not solve anything.

I think the person who is willing to try to improve the general welfare will work for it and maybe succeed.

We need to fix the sewers, steam vents, bridges, levees, and other neglected public works.

I think we need to work to ensure that there is access to healthcare for all.

And an emergency hospital, EMS, and fire fighting system in every community.

Everyone needs a safe place to sleep, healthy food to eat, clean water to dring, and useful work to do.

I think government has a part in this because the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Our "Social Contract" is expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Neither of those documents allow for the type of intrusion into the lives of citizens that you call charity.

So, are you saying that if I believe that our social contract has a valid meaning, and that gov't should be limited, then I have no right to run for office, in effect, no right to express my opinion as an elected member of gov't?

Only those that believe that our social contract isn't worth the paper its written on can, in effect, steward the creation of our laws?

Here's the thing: it's not people like me ensuring that the gov't cannot solve these types of problems. We've spent trillions trying, using the philosophy of socialists convinced that they could create a better program, ala the Great Society.

That didn't fail because conservatives defunded it. No. It's still a behemoth.

It failed because the gov't NEVER solves things like this. For our social problems, the gov't is and will be part of the problem, and not the solution.

Gov't doesn't have the power to empower freedom. It can only take and regulate, meaning that it binds freedom, at every turn.

More important, gov't is not your friend. It never was. That friendship is always sold at high dollar, and you can rarely afford it.

It's not some pollyanna dudley do-right that's gonna implement all these wonderful programs. More than likely, it's companies just like Haliburton. Worse, gov't employees as motivated at those at the social security or DMV office.

I worked in gov't. "Close enough for gov't work" has a distinct meaning. It means: we don't have to compete for your business; we have a monopoly, thank you very much.

~faith,

Timothy.

i think that i very clearly spoke to my own preference for using tax dollars to help give the poor real job skills and not condemn them to a life of meniality working for walmart. real job skills for careers that pay a living wage. (machinist, nurse whatever). living wage jobs that take families away from dependency. helping them become a part of society. family and child early intervention programs do work and pay for themselves in direct benefits both to families and society at large.

...

quoting spacenurse:

we need to fix the sewers, steam vents, bridges, levees, and other neglected public works.

i think we need to work to ensure that there is access to healthcare for all.

and an emergency hospital, ems, and fire fighting system in every community.

everyone needs a safe place to sleep, healthy food to eat, clean water to dring, and useful work to do.

endquote

i live 70 miles south of the i35w bridge that collapsed. since 1994 responsible representatives from both parties have proposed a gas tax increase as a means to improve the condition of the roads and bridges of mn. republican governors vetoed these proposals at every passage. now no one can say with any certainty that the bridge collapse could have been prevented if those had been allowed to pass but the state dot commissioner was quoted as saying that inspection was chosen over fixing that bridge d/t budgetary constraints. poor decisions lead to poor results and in this case people died.

anti poverty programs do work. but as i said before the any job philosophy is penny wise and pound foolish. america needs nurse's, machinist, welders and people with technical skills far more than it needs checkers at walmart (and many of those are being phased out with self checkout lines). if we want people out of poverty as a country then we need to invest the resources needed to give them the skills to move out of poverty. as the original source pointed out we are wasting 500 billion dollars per year d/t the adverse effects of poverty.

james manktielow has some provocative thoughts about improving human performance and motivation:

[color=#333333]

[color=#333333]performance = ability x motivation

where:

[color=#333333]

  • ability is the person's aptitude, as well as the training and resources supplied by the organization

  • motivation is the product of desire and commitment

[color=#333333]someone with 100% motivation and 75% ability can often achieve above-average performance. but a worker with only 25% ability won't be able to achieve the type of performance you expect, regardless of his or her level of motivation.

[color=#333333]...

[color=#333333][color=#003399]improving motivation

sometimes poor performance has its roots in low motivation. when this is the case, you need to work closely with the employee to create a motivating environment in which to work. there are three key interventions that may improve people's motivation:

[color=#333333]

  • setting of performance goals.
  • provision of performance assistance.
  • provision of performance feedback.

source:([color=#003399]http://www.mindtools.com) and the subscription email address for the newsletter ([color=#003399]http://www.mindtools.com/subscribe.htm).

Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.

Do you ever NOT have an answer for something, Tim?

*takes tongue out of cheek*

I'm not Republican OR Democrat. I have registered independent because I got sick of folks assuming I am one way or the other when they find out my party registration.

I am not going to agree with you, and you are not going to agree with me. I am not worried about 2008, because 8/9/07 is enough for me to worry about.

Regarding the bridge and the vetoes of the gas tax . .I think what sticks in the craw of budget minded folks is that so much tax money is pouring into Washington but so much is being wasted on boondoggle projects, pork, waste, fluff, whatever you want to call it.

I read an article about a project in Minneapolis in the 1990's where 1 BILLION dollars of state and federal INFRASTRUCTURE dollars was spent on a light rail system called "Haiwatha Light Rail". Instead of using the money for what it was intended, infrastructure, it was used as a pretty photo op for politicians. Now, the estimates for the bridge are $250 million . .. . for the 1 billion dollars DIVERTED - you could build that bridge many times over.

THAT is why (some) mean old Republicans veto pork projects. Because the money should be spent on things we actually need.

I know people get sick of this, but if I ran my household like the government runs the country, I'd be in debt up to my ears.

"The administration in turn has demanded that Congress show more discipline, citing thousands of special projects, or earmarks, in highway bills that don't reflect the real priorities. The best known among them was one that Young supported: $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. That provision eventually faltered, but about $24 billion -- a little less than 8 percent of the total -- in the last highway bill was still devoted to projects singled out by lawmakers for funding."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8QSB59O0.htm

steph

Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
Regarding the bridge and the vetoes of the gas tax . .I think what sticks in the craw of budget minded folks is that so much tax money is pouring into Washington but so much is being wasted on boondoggle projects, pork, waste, fluff, whatever you want to call it.

I read an article about a project in Minneapolis in the 1990's where 1 BILLION dollars of state and federal INFRASTRUCTURE dollars was spent on a light rail system called "Haiwatha Light Rail". Instead of using the money for what it was intended, infrastructure, it was used as a pretty photo op for politicians. Now, the estimates for the bridge are $250 million . .. . for the 1 billion dollars DIVERTED - you could build that bridge many times over.

THAT is why (some) mean old Republicans veto pork projects. Because the money should be spent on things we actually need.

I know people get sick of this, but if I ran my household like the government runs the country, I'd be in debt up to my ears.

"The administration in turn has demanded that Congress show more discipline, citing thousands of special projects, or earmarks, in highway bills that don't reflect the real priorities. The best known among them was one that Young supported: $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. That provision eventually faltered, but about $24 billion -- a little less than 8 percent of the total -- in the last highway bill was still devoted to projects singled out by lawmakers for funding."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8QSB59O0.htm

steph

I totally agree with you -and I'm a bleeding heart liberal, not a mean old republican!

America needs nurse's, machinist, welders and people with technical skills far more than it needs checkers at WalMart (and many of those are being phased out with self checkout lines). If we want people out of poverty as a country then we need to invest the resources needed to give them the skills to move out of poverty. As the original source pointed out we are wasting 500 BILLION dollars per year d/t the adverse effects of poverty.

To get back on track the original point of this thread was an expression of concern about the adverse effects of poverty on our society which regardless of your individual political beliefs is something that we should all be able to agree on.

ZASHAGALKA

So, are you saying that if I believe that our social contract has a valid meaning, and that gov't should be limited, then I have no right to run for office, in effect, no right to express my opinion as an elected member of gov't?

NO I am not

Only those that believe that our social contract isn't worth the paper its written on can, in effect, steward the creation of our laws?

NO I am not.

Here's the thing: it's not people like me ensuring that the gov't cannot solve these types of problems. We've spent trillions trying, using the philosophy of socialists convinced that they could create a better program, ala the Great Society

That didn't fail because conservatives defunded it. No. It's still a behemoth.

I think privatization is worse than defunding because it is not done honestly

It failed because the gov't NEVER solves things like this. For our social problems, the gov't is and will be part of the problem, and not the solution.

WE are the government.

Gov't doesn't have the power to empower freedom. It can only take and regulate, meaning that it binds freedom, at every turn.

Of course no one can "empower" anyone. WE have to use our power. Your employer cannot empower you either.

More important, gov't is not your friend. It never was. That friendship is always sold at high dollar, and you can rarely afford it.

WE are the government.

Of course a written contract is not a friend. WE can do our best to mitigate the selling of OUR rights as human beings. Rights to the basic necessities of life.

It's not some pollyanna dudley do-right that's gonna implement all these wonderful programs. More than likely, it's companies just like Haliburton. Worse, gov't employees as motivated at those at the social security or DMV office.

I have had a drivers license since 1960. My DH and millions of others Social Security checks arrive on time every month."

Want to eliminate the requirement for drivers to be licensed?

I already know you want to get rid of the Social Security insurance many of us have been paying for all these years.

I worked in gov't. "Close enough for gov't work" has a distinct meaning. It means: we don't have to compete for your business; we have a monopoly, thank you very much.

I worked at the VA during the Viet Nam war caring for orthopedic patients. I did all I possibly could for all my patients, veterans od WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.

MOST of us were dedicated, caring, and hard working.

I guess it comes down to what you think of as the common welfare.

I admit to being frustrated that I don't have the money or the energy to help people help themselves. Although I've made it possible for at least two homeless people go to nursing school who are now working full time. One raised her kids working as a nurse after becoming homeless when she left her abusive husband. She couldn't live with her parents because he would have killed her so she came to this city.

She did use welfare, food stamps, and MediCal for 1 1/2 years.

If not for that government help she would have had to put her kids in a foster home and live on the streets.

The other lived with us after her "wonderful" parents put her out on the streets on her 18th birthday (she was a senior in HS).

I didn't have all the resources needed to provide what even two terrific young women needed. I did care for kids on weekends, pay for books and uniforms, buy bus passes, and give emotional support.

So do I want others to help? YES. Even those who have no ability to see that when everyone does better everyone does better.

If WE THE PEOPLE decide to use OUR tax money to provide necessities of survival to OUR fellow Americans what is so bad about that?

Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.

The reality is, SOMEBODY is going to be on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, no matter what we do or don't do. Not everyone can earn $20 an hour or more; if tomorrow that became the norm, prices would rise dramatically due to the increased cost of doing business, and then........the $20/hr wage earner will be back on the bottom again.

Unless, of course, we adopt a socialist form of government, and America is not about to do that.

Now, I've been poor, and I've been not-so-poor, and you can call me selfish if you want---I don't believe I should be forced to give up what I've worked hard for, in order to make life cushy for those who refuse to help themselves or take responsibility for their actions. I will go to the mat for someone willing to pull him/herself up by the bootstraps and work hard, however, and I agree that people should be encouraged and supported in making as much of their lives as possible.

To that end, I think all concerned would benefit greatly if the government programs serving them were geared to helping them escape poverty, rather than perpetuating it as the current system does. But once again, there will ALWAYS be people working at Wal-Mart or Mc Donald's for 7 bucks an hour or so, because a) that is what the market will bear, and b) we are not all created equal, intellectually or educationally. And again, I suppose I'm just being selfish and mean when I say that I don't think someone who dropped out of high school and works as a day laborer should have the same lifestyle and earnings that I do. By the same token, I don't have, or deserve, the lifestyle and earnings of a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates.......the only difference is, I don't expect the government to help me reach those lofty heights, and I'm not angry at the world for not handing everything to me on a silver platter.

Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.

WE are the government.

I have had a drivers license since 1960. My DH and millions of others Social Security checks arrive on time every month."

Want to eliminate the requirement for drivers to be licensed?

I already know you want to get rid of the Social Security insurance many of us have been paying for all these years.

I worked at the VA during the Viet Nam war caring for orthopedic patients. I did all I possibly could for all my patients, veterans od WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.

MOST of us were dedicated, caring, and hard working.

I guess it comes down to what you think of as the common welfare.

I admit to being frustrated that I don't have the money or the energy to help people help themselves. Although I've made it possible for at least two homeless people go to nursing school who are now working full time. One raised her kids working as a nurse after becoming homeless when she left her abusive husband. She couldn't live with her parents because he would have killed her so she came to this city.

She did use welfare, food stamps, and MediCal for 1 1/2 years.

If not for that government help she would have had to put her kids in a foster home and live on the streets.

The other lived with us after her "wonderful" parents put her out on the streets on her 18th birthday (she was a senior in HS).

I didn't have all the resources needed to provide what even two terrific young women needed. I did care for kids on weekends, pay for books and uniforms, buy bus passes, and give emotional support.

So do I want others to help? YES. Even those who have no ability to see that when everyone does better everyone does better.

If WE THE PEOPLE decide to use OUR tax money to provide necessities of survival to OUR fellow Americans what is so bad about that?

:yeahthat: You said what I could not!

+ Join the Discussion