The high cost of poverty and the cycle of poverty

The high cost of being poor and the cycle of poverty


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/out-of-the-shelter-how-one-homeless-teenage-mother-built-a-life-of-her-own/265110/


''"You need a place to live, but to afford a two-bedroom apartment on a minimum-wage salary, the math says you'd need to work more than 20 hours each weekday -- an impossibility for anyone who needs to sleep. And to keep that job, you have to find childcare, but in 36 states, a year of child care costs more than a year in a state college.''"

My News Sources

just a general list of my most used sources in no particular order plus its not a complete list

NPR

Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report (they are great at condensing Main Stream Media crap into good stories that weed out all the infotainment crap and also give good interviews and debates--mostly Jon but Stephen as well)

PBS

C-SPAN

BBC

NYT

Atlantic Magazine

Bloomberg

Business Insider

Baseline Scenario blog

CBO

Wikipedia is good as well have great articles but also great links and resources at the bottom of their articles

Economic Policy Institute

Moody's Analytics

Fortune Magazine

Factcheck.org and Politifact

Washington Post

New Yorker

Time Magazine

Newsweek

WBAI

BLS

Obama and Bush--our economy and debt

I always hear from GOP how great Bush economy was--and yes unemployment was low until 2007 and Obama came into office with a deficit and bad job loss numbers--BUT GOP FORGETS ABOUT THE RECESSION and what it did to our spending and deficits and debt--plus Bush's debt record is erased by GOP

The financial crisis was a housing and credit bust that broke our economy and cost 8 million jobs to be lost which led to lower tax revenue and more spending in Obama's administration AND THE END OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION--2007-2009

unemployment went up as jobs were lost

job losses meant less workers paying taxes and increased spending for government---unemployment insurance//medicaid//food stamps etc

IMPACT OF JOB LOSSES ON ECONOMY

home foreclosures lead to greater instability in the market and lives of those who lost their homes and savings and jobs

So thats the recession that hit in 2007 until 2009 and still affects our economy today---we are having a slower recovery because our Wall st crash lead to a worldwide freeze in credit 

these are just some basics as to why we are in this economy right now----then there's the whole taxes and debt debate---

TAXES need to go up on the rich---this is a picture of the ""47%"" who pay no income tax---but look at those who DO pay income tax and look where it stops---$200,000 a year---Middle Class bears the tax burden in this country---the poor dont make enough and the rich get special treatment!!!!!

ORIGINAL GRAPH

 

My comments on the above graph

The Top rate used to be a LOT higher, in fact the JFK tax cut was brought up in debates in the 2012 election, JFK "cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%." link

THE RICH NEED TO PAY MORE IN TAXES!!!!!!

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2004/01/30/perfectly-legal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irHgknaS2jA

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/tax-increases-and-bull-markets/

http://www.businessinsider.com/america-taxes-charts-2013-1

AND finally the debt!!!!! who created it?? it was started in 1776 when we became a country--the states unified their Revolutionary War debt and used it to borrow money to finance our economy (FOR MORE SEE book)

The debt was relatively stable from 1940 except for World War 2 until Reagan comes into office--then Clinton starts to lower it as he ends his 2nd term

BUSH TAX CUTS WERE NOT PAID FOR BUT GOP HAD NO PROBLEM ENACTING THEM

TAX CUTS LEAD TO DEFICITS

Obama's ""spending problem""

VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!

VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!

VOTE OBAMA!!!

our ""immoral debt""

Are you worried about our growing debt and what it means for our economy??

First of all I recommend you learn about our debt first
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm

Debt since 1776 223 years in the making

The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters To You http://whitehouseburning.com/

BUSH (SOTU 2001) and our current debt---""You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high"" SPEECH TEXT
Budget Battles and Budget Games

""Washington Monumenting""  and Goverment Shutdowns and Budget Battles
http://www.decodedc.com/home/2013/2/28/episode-9-irrational-numbers.html

MORE from Bush State of the Union February 2001 FULL SPEECH
Now we come to a fork in the road. We have two choices. Even though we have already met our needs, we could spend the money on more and bigger government. That's the road our nation has traveled in recent years.

Last year, government spending shot up 8 percent. That's far more than our economy grew, far more than personal income grew and far more than the rate of inflation. If you continue on that road, you will spend the surplus and have to dip into Social Security to pay other bills. Unrestrained government spending is a dangerous road to deficits, so we must take a different path.

(APPLAUSE)

The other choice is to let the American people spend their own money to meet their own needs.

(APPLAUSE)

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.

(APPLAUSE)

Some say my tax plan is too big.

(APPLAUSE)

Others say it's too small.

(APPLAUSE)

I respectfully disagree.

(LAUGHTER)

This plan is just right.







THEN if you're so worried you wanna make a payment here is the address to mail your check from---ENJOY AND THANKS!!!

you can pay online or mail a check!!!!

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

• You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
• You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
  
  Attn Dept G
  Bureau of the Public Debt
  P. O. Box 2188
  Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Bill Clinton had surpluses at the end of his presidency--and we were actually projecting NO DEBT by 2012--and were worried about what that would mean for our economy

What if we paid off the entire debt?? 

an interesting dilemma---too much debt MAY be bad in the distant future and paying it DOWN is not bad--but no debt is actually bad for our economy and the global economy

Reagan was WISE if only GOP would listen

I recently watched Dinesh D'souza's Obama 2016 movie--i'll have more on that later--but just a few points here

the premise is that Obama is anti-colonialist and wants to disarm America of nuclear weapons and let other countries keep their nuclear arms--like Iran for example

But Dinesh WORKED in the Reagan White House--so i got some ideas from Reagan

Also---is Dinesh saying that anti colonialism is un-American?? does he know American history, especially around 1776?? and Dinesh is Indian from India, a country that gained independence from Britain in 1947--so I'm not sure why being anti colonialist as he claims Obama is----is a bad thing.


Reagan Speech with thoughts on nuclear weapons, war, economy and spending, etc
bold is my comments 
President Reagan Commencement Address Eureka College Illinois May 9 1982

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/50982a.htm 

Reagan here makes some points that today's GOP needs to hear as well
Reagan says 
""The Soviet Union must make the difficult choices brought on by its military budgets and economic shortcomings.""

Reagan says 
But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by preempting the human needs of its people, and, in the end, this course will undermine the foundations of the Soviet system. Harry Truman was right when he said of the Soviets that, ``When you try to conquer other people or extend yourself over vast areas you cannot win in the long run.''

This is a great quote for our current gun laws debate with the NRA and everyone who wants a gun for self defense (and American foreign policy, especially August--September 2013 Syria debate)
""Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.""
(My version is ""war is diplomacy by force""   Amy Goodman  said ""war ends in diplomacy, so start there instead"")


Reagan makes some great points here
""talk to your enemies, arms reduction, economic stability"" 

Reagan says 
""I believe such a policy consists of five points: military balance, economic security, regional stability, arms reductions, and dialog. Now, these are the means by which we can seek peace with the Soviet Union in the years ahead.''"

The fourth point is arms reduction.  REAGAN AND OBAMA ARE NOT ANTI COLONIALIST WHILE LOOKING FOR NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTIONS OF OURSELVES OUR ALLIES AND OUR ENEMIES---THEY ARE SEEKING AN END TO THE ARMS RACE AND PEACE

Reagan says 
""I wish more than anything there were a simple policy that would eliminate that nuclear danger. But there are only difficult policy choices through which we can achieve a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level.

I do not doubt that the Soviet people, and, yes, the Soviet leaders have an overriding interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union within the memory of its leaders has known the devastation of total conventional war and knows that nuclear war would be even more calamitous. And yet, so far, the Soviet Union has used arms control negotiations primarily as an instrument to restrict U.S. defense programs and, in conjunction with their own arms buildup, a means to enhance Soviet power and prestige.

Unfortunately, for some time suspicions have grown that the Soviet Union has not been living up to its obligations under existing arms control treaties. There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast Asia. And the Soviets themselves are employing chemical weapons on the freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.

We must establish firm criteria for arms control in the 1980's if we're to secure genuine and lasting restraint on Soviet military programs throughout arms control. We must seek agreements which are verifiable, equitable, and militarily significant. Agreements that provide only the appearance of arms control breed dangerous illusions.

Last November, I committed the United States to seek significant reductions on nuclear and conventional forces. In Geneva, we have since proposed limits on U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles, including the complete elimination of the most threatening systems on both sides. In Vienna, we're negotiating, together with our allies, for reductions of conventional forces in Europe. In the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament, the United Nations [United States] seeks a total ban on all chemical weapons.

Since the first days of my administration, we're been working on our approach to the crucial issue of strategic arms and the control and negotiations for control of those arms with the Soviet Union. The study and analysis required has been complex and difficult. It had to be undertaken deliberately, thoroughly, and correctly. We've laid a solid basis for these negotiations. We're consulting with congressional leaders and with our allies, and we are now ready to proceed.

The main threat to peace posed by nuclear weapons today is the growing instability of the nuclear balance. This is due to the increasingly destructive potential of the massive Soviet buildup in its ballistic missile force.

Therefore, our goal is to enhance deterrence and achieve stability through significant reductions in the most destabilizing nuclear systems, ballistic missiles, and especially the giant intercontinental ballistic missiles, while maintaining a nuclear capability sufficient to deter conflict, to underwrite our national security, and to meet our commitment to allies and friends.

For the immediate future, I'm asking my START -- and START really means -- we've given up on SALT -- START means ``Strategic Arms Reduction Talks,'' and that negotiating team to propose to their Soviet counterparts a practical, phased reduction plan. The focus of our efforts will be to reduce significantly the most destabilizing systems, the ballistic missiles, the number of warheads they carry, and their overall destructive potential.

At the first phase, or the end of the first phase of START, I expect ballistic missile warheads, the most serious threat we face, to be reduced to equal levels, equal ceilings, at least a third below the current levels. To enhance stability, I would ask that no more than half of those warheads be land-based. I hope that these warhead reductions, as well as significant reductions in missiles themselves, could be achieved as rapidly as possible.

In a second phase, we'll seek to achieve an equal ceiling on other elements of our strategic nuclear forces, including limits on the ballistic missile throw-weight at less than current American levels. In both phases, we shall insist on verification procedures to ensure compliance with the agreement.

This, I might say, will be the twentieth time that we have sought such negotiations with the Soviet Union since World War II. The monumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability will take many years of concentrated effort. But I believe that it will be possible to reduce the risks of war by removing the instabilities that now exist and by dismantling the nuclear menace.""""

REAGAN AND OBAMA WANT STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTIONS AND ECONOMIC STABILITY--REAGAN INCREASED THE DEBT AND SO DID OBAMA--BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS BUT NEITHER WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA

Some thoughts on the Constitution

LOOKING AT THE CONSTITUTION you find the basic laws establishing a Congress and President etc. and what you also find is what is missing that we now know of--how to deal with treaties, the nature of the presidential cabinet and other terms that were worked out by President Washington and the early Congresses--but what i do find is fascinating in light of today's liberals and conservatives--and no i am not a scholar and it is open to interpretation. The Preamble--We the people--that everyone knows--talks about what we want to set up in this country--We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do order and establish the constitution...

so the general welfare should be promoted--so the GOP argues against food stamps because it takes away freedom?? ok not sure on that--also in the Declaration of Independance we find that God has given us Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and in order to secure these rights we establish government of the people by the people----SO AGAIN GOP SMALL GOVT BAFFLES ME AS WELL AS LACK OF SOCIAL SAFETY NET IN THEIR AGENDAS

Section 8 of the Constitution--states that Congress shall lay and collect taxes to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States and TO BORROW MONEY on the credit of the united states (MAYBE IF THE FOUNDERS SAID DEBT CEILING WE'D BE OK NOW)

AGAIN NOT SURE WHY GOP IS AGAINST TAXES OR SOCIAL SAFETY NET-----THESE WERE PUT IN BY PEOPLE SETTING UP THEIR OWN GOVT-----NO ISSUE OF FREEDOM GRABBING HERE

AH THIS IS FUN---to promote the PROGRESS OF SCIENCE and USEFUL ARTS---- its says with patents (LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS) but still come on Climate Change???

To raise and support armies but no longer for two years----maybe that means at a time---every two years need to approve more spending??? im not sure

Again i am not a scholar these are just some thoughts i found interesting in re reading the constitution and Declaration of Independence

GOP and taxes

Why are the GOP against taxes?? They will say that higher taxes hurt our economy or that it will kill jobs or that govt spends too much money. In reality it is simply their world view---Govt is bad and taxes are how we fund it---lower taxes and you will make govt smaller. Grover Norquist seems to be the only person who will even admit that this is the ultimate goal anymore---he used to say make govt small enough to drown in a bathtub---now he just says cut it in half---but at least smaller govt is his stated goal---even though he will also say it hurts the economy, it kills jobs, stimulus doesnt work---he uses an image of a lake--someone stands on one end with a bucket and takes some water and puts it in the other end and says ""stimulus""---but the REAL analogy would be a river feeding that lake or even how every river ends in the ocean---its funny how stimulus REALLY works----every river ends up in the ocean.

The GOP used to be the fiscally responsible party---they would spend less and raise taxes when more spending was needed, and were upset when Democrats would lower taxes, saying it would cause deficits and debt----imagine that huh!!!! I would say this desire to kill the govt was treasonous---it certainly seemed so to me--but it doesnt fit the actual definition (i looked it up) of ""killing the sovereign leader or overthrowing the govt"" well its good news for the GOP.

So my question to them would be---why pay any taxes at all?? why should the rich only get a 20% tax cut for the last ten years (and another 20% if Romney was elected)---why not 40 50 or 90%??? why should the rich pay any taxes??? then again why should any of us?? My assumed answer is that well that would be ridiculous and the govt has some role Borders, Military etc and we need to fund something. So its back to GOP wants smaller govt and Dems believe govt has a role to play in our lives and the more you make the more you should pay. Maybe one day we could agree on something.