dagblog - Comments for "Mother guilty of felony poverty-loses kids, goes to jail"

Many liberals were making

ocean-kat — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 07:49:10 +0000

Many liberals were making that point at the time, asking what happens when there's a downturn and unemployment goes up. And many members of the DLC laughed that question away because they were sure they had the new economy figured out and there would be no more downturns. Most did think the dotcom boom and the housing bubble would just keep going on forever.

God you're tenacious. How

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 06:40:16 +0000

In reply to Who's "people"? Allan

God you're tenacious.

How about "The Economist" - http://www.economist.com/node/242138

"Major Analysts" - http://mises.org/journals/scholar/thornton6.pdf [including a timeline of quotes at the end]

Robert Shiller seems to be one known economist with a good track record who focused on this; Greenspan oracle-like tressed "irrational exhuberance" several times.

Then your bullshit 2nd-to-last paragraph - they initiated this transition in 1996, which lasted 4 years. It more or less was successful. The lack of success you're intimating came with the next president who in 2002 changed the program. Sure, they should have designed the program to be bullet-proof against any motherfucker who takes office whatsoever, right?

Now, *when* is the problem with the program that you're suggesting? Why, you don't say. You don't even say what the problem is. You're happy to believe that Clinton started whatever problem we're supposedly discussing, but it's bad that I suggest Bush changed the playing field so we're talking about a new issue. I also point out that for example, the effect of the 2008 crash on unemployment and the duration of long-term unemployment especially among blacks is far harsher than any suggested negative effects between 1996 and 2001, but Congress and the President haven't actually reacted to do anything about it. So Clinton's guilty of not predicting the future to a time when all politicians are assholes and have given up any sort of social responsibility that even Richard fucking Nixon was capable of.

I noted that Clinton vetoed the bill until it contained enough provisions for childcare to help with unemployed-to-working transitions - the point of JR's diary to begin with - and only required 30-hour-a-week workloads, not Bush's 40. Do you anywhere in all your comments bother to discuss MY basic premise? Or are speculative plaints all you do?

[PS - maybe I somehow hinted that the Jews did it all - we can start another useless thread chasing that rabbit down the hole]

Well, this is nice. In the

jollyroger — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:53:00 +0000

In reply to Mother guilty of felony poverty-loses kids, goes to jail

Well, this is nice. In the two hours or so since I first looked at the fundraiser, it's gone up about 4,000, so that of the original 9000 bail needed, there has now been donated

~~Sixty two thousand~~

~~$69,000~~

~~$75,000~~

$82,000 !!!!

I don't know about how you

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 23:43:50 +0000

In reply to No, it was considered an

I don't know about how you view the other comments here...

But I think you're getting hung up on a perceived critique of Clinton.

That's not the point I'm making.

Yes, I AM saying that perhaps they should've done things differently, but I don't gainsay the good things Clinton did or the poverty rates that went down. It would be interesting to know how many of those gains stuck, however.

(It may be a little hard to tell because people who were NOT in poverty also did worse after the boom busted.)

I do think that Clinton was part of a rightward shift in the country. A Democratic version of it. He triangulated in such a way that he robbed the GOP of its core issues, but moving rightward was part of what he sacrificed in the process.

It's possible he couldn't have succeeded otherwise. As I recall, he got a nose drubbing when he tried to allow gays in the military and retreated to DADT. But as I remember it, DADT was a step forward at that time.

Politics is the art of the possible, and nothing gets done unless you get elected, stay elected, and convince enough members of Congress to go along with you.

Who's "people"? Allan

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:57:37 +0000

In reply to If people, including the

Who's "people"?

Allan Greenspan? Ben Bernanke?

That's a silly first paragraph. Unless you act like it's a bubble, you don't know that it's a bubble. Or your knowing is meaningless.

If everyone knows there are cycles, then they should have planned for the down cycle and not built a program whose "success" depended on the up cycle.

That's my point.

The money that is going into

trkingmomoe — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 08:40:14 +0000

In reply to Do you really think so? I

The money that is going into a fund for her is coming from small donors. People really are horrified by the direction the Republicans are trying to take us. You see the news media doesn't talk to us poor people. So our point of view or suffering is never taken in to consideration. This country has raise a generation of kids that 40 % languished in poverty. They are adults now and more are coming in behind them. This is going to have an impact and it is already showing in politics. The UN came out with a report this week raking the US over the coals about human rights violations and how we mistreat our poor. The GOP in their current form is going to be irrelevant in a few election cycles.

A week ago I was shopping at the local Goodwill and a women came up to me pan handling. I recognized her but she didn't recognize me because my hair was cut. So I called her by her name and told her who I was. Then we did some gossip about the local homeless to fill me in on what was going on. She has lupus and is middle aged. She told me she finally got her disability after I said she look good. She told me she had her own doctor now and even showed me her teeth because she got dental work done. Not all homeless have addiction problems or mental issues. I know she has been on the street for the last 3 years. She told me she was sharing a small place with some others and was not living in a camp. But the sad part was, here she was still pan handling, so that told me her aid was still falling short of what was needed. She gave her usual pan handling story about why she needed the money which I had herd several times in the past. The red puffy skin color was almost gone, her light brown hair was shiny and she looked like she felt better. There is no excuse for this country to allow disabled women with lupus to live on the street. It is criminal for states to not expand Medicaid for these people. She feels like one of the lucky ones now. Yet she still has to take risks to survive.

When a story reaches the national media like the young mother who was jailed, it is only a tiny part of what is going on in this country right now. I would like to know just what the stats are on how many mothers who have lost their kids because they were poor. I know it is a lot more than the country realizes.

It's possible I was thinking

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 01:02:59 +0000

In reply to "That there are a lot more

It's possible I was thinking about numbers on welfare, but take a look at this:

10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.

27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.

http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html

It appears there are almost a million more white kids living in poverty than black kids, though a much higher percentage of black kids than white kids live in poverty.

breaking significant

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:15:58 +0000

In reply to "That there are a lot more

breaking significant dependence on welfare rather than getting back in the workforce.

What does this mean?

I thought that breaking significant dependence on welfare meant getting back in the workforce. How do you break the dependence without getting back in the workforce?

Beats the fuck outta me--it

jollyroger — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:40:02 +0000

In reply to And, of course, it was

Beats the fuck outta me--it should read 60 years (starts in 1935 as part of FDR's social security program) I'm pretty sure that I picked up the excessive number somewhere, but I can't find it now, so one suspects the drugs.

OTOH, 60, 100, who's counting? Lets redraw the parameter to "three generations of policy"

"That there are a lot more

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:03:38 +0000

In reply to No, it was considered an

"That there are a lot more jobs for everyone when the economy is booming is not an anti-poverty program." who said reforming welfare was an "anti-poverty program"? it was more billed as breaking significant dependence on welfare rather than getting back in the workforce.

Re: poor whites vs poor blacks, consider this: