PDA

View Full Version : 'Nobody's Going to F-ing Die Because We're Poor!'



DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 01:26 AM
'Nobody's Going to F-ing Die Because We're Poor!'
Posted: 04/27/2012 5:46 pm
Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-mckee/nobodys-going-to-die-because-we-are-poor_b_1460191.html)

Janice walked in carrying a huge new juicer -- a good one. One that probably cost a couple of hundred dollars that I'm pretty sure she had a hard time coming up with. She found the money somehow, though, because her sister Cheryl needs to stay healthy. "Nobody's going to f-ing die because we're poor!"

Cheryl's fighting cancer and good food helps. And that juicer has helped a lot. Between fresh juices every day, lots of supplements, vitamins and biweekly doses of chemo, the tumors are shrinking. She's got hope and so do we.

It makes sense -- clean, vitamin-packed fruits and vegetables are good for all of us, and they're especially good when you need to clear your system of poison. Cancer is poison.

So is poverty. It kills just as surely as cancer, if more insidiously.

So, here's the story. You could say that Cheryl and I grew up together. We lived next door to each other in an absolutely beautiful place in Hawai'i (we had Section 8, which helped us pay the rent). I'd moved there with a 3-year-old and a brand-new baby to try to find a better life after bouncing from one crappy job to another in California. What I found in our new life in Hawai'i was more poverty -- and an amazing best friend. Cheryl's mother was native Hawaiian and her father was white. She was raised Hawaiian. For those of you who have lived in Hawai'i, you know the significance of this. And you might know how hard it is for nonlocals -- haoles -- to fit in and make friends. I had a really, really hard time -- I was poor and isolated and desperately lonely. Cheryl took me under her wing and quite literally saved my life.

We helped each other with our kids. We found joy in our young womanhood. We shared laughter and tears during our pregnancies, fights with our husbands, and struggles to put food on the table. We loved each other then and we love each other now.

Cheryl is a wonderful person who has raised wonderful kids. She's had amazing experiences in life. She has also had some really horrible experiences -- all of which she has risen above. She is one of the wisest people I know. Today, she's battling cancer with grace, humor and courage. And along with millions of other people in America she's struggling financially. Here are some facts:

• 15.1 percent of the population in the U.S. in 2010 was below the poverty line.
• Infant mortality rate (2012 estimates): 5.98 deaths per 1,000 live births, which ranks the U.S. 48th in a list from best (Monaco and Japan) to worst (Afghanistan).
• In 2004, the U.S. had the third-highest poverty rate in 24 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. By 2011, the U.S. had the fourth-highest inequality level in 34 OECD countries, following Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.
• U.S. income distribution is worse than nearly all of the 47 highly developed countries and economic regions identified by the United Nations.
• Poverty can be linked to poor health, including cancer, in a variety of ways, including how difficult it is to maintain a healthy diet with too-little income.

Is poverty a carcinogen, as Samuel Broder, director of the National Cancer Institute in 1989, suggested? It's much debated, but we know for sure that there's a correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and access to education, health care and lifestyle choices that help -- or harm -- health. And in the U.S., SES is linked to race. According to a 2011 report by the American Cancer Society, "In 2007, about 164,000 men and women aged 25-64 years died of cancer in the US. More than 60,000 (37%) of these deaths could have been avoided if all segments of the population had the same cancer death rates as the most educated whites."

So, back to Cheryl's story. She is a beautiful woman. She's lean and toned from a lifetime of running and swimming. She beat the poverty odds and has stayed healthy much of the time. But that doesn't mean it's easy to get healthy now. She needs good food, expensive vitamins and supplements -- things that Medicaid won't pay for but that will help her stay on top of the disease. And then there's gas money for the many long trips from her town to the city for chemo. Being sick is expensive. Her family will do anything they possibly can to help her beat the thing. But it's almost impossible to find the money.

People do die because they're poor in the U.S. What the hell is wrong with us as a people that we turn a blind eye to this?

The U.S. falls behind other developed nations on so many measures of well-being. Our children are more obese. Adults, too. We're just average when it comes at teaching math and sciences and, in general, at educating our children. And that's not our teachers' faults. Drug and alcohol abuses are high here in America. Cruelty and neglect of children continues to be a huge problem, and every day three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.

Of course, rich and middle-class people suffer from cancer and drug abuse, alcoholism, child and spouse abuse. All of these issues are complicated. So is poverty. But, when it comes right down to it, there is absolutely no reason for the kind of poverty we see in the U.S., other than the choices we have made as a nation and the cultural beliefs we hold that have at the center tolerance for inequity and the notion that poverty is a result of indolence. People aren't poor because they're lazy. It is much, much harder to be poor than it is to be financially comfortable. I know this from my own personal experience.

What's really hard is breaking free of poverty. It's almost like our entire system is geared toward keeping people exactly where they are -- fighting to get out becomes your problem. I spent many years fighting to get out of poverty. And yes, I and millions of other people benefit from programs like food stamps, welfare, housing assistance and government-funded education. Without these programs I wouldn't be where I am today. But if they were really working systemically, we simply wouldn't have so many people toiling under the yoke of poverty.

It shouldn't be this way. But changing how we view and deal with poverty will require that we all do something: help a friend in need, loan money for someone's college tuition, coach and mentor young people. Buy a juicer. And although we can't vote our way out of this problem, it's pretty clear where the lines are drawn in the debate. I will most certainly be voting for President Obama and others who will work to halt our slide into spiritual, as well as real, impoverishment as a nation.

This isn't some abstract conversation about poverty. My friend Cheryl, like millions of Americans, can't afford to buy basic things that will help her to get and stay healthy. And in a country as rich as ours, no one should f-ing die because they're poor.

Follow Annie McKee on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/anniemckee

cushioncrawler
05-01-2012, 04:21 AM
I dont eat fruit, fruit iz krapp.
And fruit juice iz concentrated krapp, besides having two words end to end with the letters ui.
mac.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 04:46 AM
Another great post.

Matching the story to recorded Republicans votes draws quite a sad picture of disgusting nature of Republican policies.

The Party of the OUT OF TOUCH.

Like two adults, who put the sick family dog on the roof of the car, and drive six hours in the bitter cold, and then laugh about it!

That alone, tells us all who the Romneys are.

Repulsive people, who are both completely out of touch with their own psychotic narcissistic disorder!

G.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 05:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More than 127 million Americans -- about 41 percent of the country -- still suffer from pollution levels that can make breathing dangerous, according to a new report.

The American Lung Association State of the Air 2012, released Wednesday, shows signs of air-quality improvement, but also indicates struggles in many regions nationwide. The volunteer health organization examined 2008-2010 ozone levels, the main ingredient of smog air pollution, and air-particle pollution at official measuring sites across the U.S.

Out of the 25 cities with the most ozone pollution, 22 saw improvements in air quality over last year's report. Similar advancements were seen among cities with the most year-round particle pollution.

“State of the Air shows that we’re making real and steady progress in cutting dangerous pollution from the air we breathe,” said Charles Connor, American Lung Association president, in a statement. "But despite these improvements, America’s air quality standards are woefully outdated, and unhealthy levels of air pollution still exist across the nation, putting the health of millions of Americans at stake.”

ALA project director Janice Nolen told The Huffington Post that the continued cleanup of power plants and fleet turnover has led to improvements.

"Cleaning up air pollution has measurable public health benefits," Nolen said. During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, for example she said, morning traffic levels decreased by 23 percent, the region's ozone levels decreased by 28 percent, and pediatric asthma emergency room visits dropped by an estimated 42 percent.

"These results suggest that efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality also can help improve the respiratory health of a community," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.

Nolen also cited the EPA's 2010 findings that reduced air pollution resulting from Clean Air Act amendments in 1990 prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths.

Despite the benefits of reduced air pollution, Nolen said that generally, "we are not yet at the point where we're providing air that doesn't send people to the emergency room."

Regions that topped the list for year-round particle pollution included Bakersfield-Delano, Calif.; Hanford-Corcoran, Calif; and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.

While short-term particle pollution is based on a 24-hour period, year-round particle pollution is considered the annual average of pollution in the region. The report used a weighted average number of days for both ozone and short-term particle pollution levels.

Bakersfield-Delano also was first among regions most polluted by short-term particle pollution, with Fresno-Madera, Calif., and Hanford-Corcoran following. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside; Visalia-Porterville, Calif.; Bakersfield-Delano were the three most ozone-polluted regions in the country.

Four cities were newcomers to the list of cities most polluted by particle pollution: Wheeling, W. Va.; Atlanta; Fairmont, W. Va.; and Davenport, Iowa. Although the cities were added in part because other cities made greater improvements in reducing pollution levels, the list includes cities "where some of the cleanup measures haven't been put in place as much, where you've had a lot of pollution from coal plants," said Nolen.

Some states suffer not just from plants in their own cities, but plants in other states. "The folks who live in those communities can't address it themselves. They can't stop the pollution from blowing across state lines," according to Nolen.

The reasons for high levels of air pollution vary to a degree by location. California regions face challenges due in part to the agricultural processes, weather and goods-movement industry there. The goods-movement industry includes everything from ships, trucks and trains to machines that load and unload freight and stock store shelves.

In the middle and eastern U.S., coal-fired power plants play a larger role in contributing to air pollution.

The report lists at-risk groups that are particularly vulnerable to air-pollution threats, although air pollution does not necessarily cause these conditions. They include people with asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and those of certain ages. Another notable group listed is people living in poverty.

"Over 16.9 million people with incomes meeting the federal poverty definition live in counties with unhealthful levels of ozone," the report says.

Nolen said people with low incomes tend to be at higher risk from air pollutants than wealthier people. "One, they live closer to sources that are producing the pollution. You don't have high rent housing near a power plant, or downwind from an industrial site contributing to a problem, or near a busy highway ... You also have folks who have higher incidents of diseases, which makes them at higher risk ... Third, often it's harder for them to get medical care."

She encouraged at-risk groups and concerned citizens to "let your member of Congress know that you expect the Clean Air Act to protect you and your family. Which means we have to have pollution reductions that can provide that kind of protection. We're not seeing that."

While Nolen said the EPA is taking some steps to reduce pollution, it faces challenges in the court and from members of Congress.

With an eye toward the future, one of ALA's goals for the year, Nolen said, is "to get a strong particulate matter standard out and finalized ... There are cleaner sources than coal burning for energy. But we do realize we have a ways to go."

More information and rankings from this year's State of the Air report can be found here.





</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25..._n_1446786.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/state-of-the-air-2012-american-lung-association_n_1446786.html)

Sev
05-01-2012, 06:30 AM
We spend trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty and nothing ever changes.

Everything dies. Its not a matter of but when.

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We spend trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty and nothing ever changes.

Everything dies. Its not a matter of but when. </div></div>

That's mighty Judeo-Christian of you.

Sev
05-01-2012, 06:47 AM
Its the truth.

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its the truth.

</div></div>

Yes it's the truth everybody dies, but not everyone has to be a self absorbed, uncaring scumbag. Just a thought.

Sev
05-01-2012, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its the truth.

</div></div>

Yes it's the truth everybody dies, but not everyone has to be a self absorbed, uncaring scumbag. Just a thought. </div></div>

You shouldnt beat yourself up like that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Time short you know.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We spend trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty and nothing ever changes.

Everything dies. Its not a matter of but when. </div></div>

No WE don't, Bush spent trillions of dollars, launching an illegal War, on LIES, for no good reason, and with no good result, and we're all still paying for it, and it was only ONE of his FUBARS!

Additionally, during the Clinton Administration, loads of jobs were created, and loads of people rose up from poverty levels, and Welfare, and into JOBS, because Clinton's policies, WORKED, unlike George Bush, who failed over and over.

The only thing he succeeded at was destroying our Constitutional rights, for the sake of more executive power, a policy which the First Vulcan set into place, Ronald Reagan, the FASCIST and Chief! After which, our Middle Class has beenn on a steady decline, except for during the Clinton Administration, when millions were lifted OUT OF POVERTY!.

G.

Sev
05-01-2012, 07:49 AM
You really should get your data straight.
Since the inception of The War on Poverty, tax payers have spent trillions of dollars on a policy that has given little to no return on the investment.

Seems to me the current putz in the oval office has given the green light to assassinate American citizens.

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Seems to me the current putz in the oval office has given the green light to assassinate American citizens. </div></div>

Allow me fix that for you: "Seems to me the current putz in the oval office has given the green light to assassinate American citizens who renounce America, join Al Qaeda, take up arms against America, and plot the mass murder of Americans via acts of terrorism."

Gee, I never knew you guys had a soft spot for Al Qaeda terrorists! How touching!

Sev
05-01-2012, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Seems to me the current putz in the oval office has given the green light to assassinate American citizens. </div></div>

Allow me fix that for you: "Seems to me the current putz in the oval office has given the green light to assassinate American citizens who renounce America, join Al Qaeda, take up arms against America, and plot the mass murder of Americans via acts of terrorism."

Gee, I never knew you guys had a soft spot for Al Qaeda terrorists! How touching! </div></div>

Drones are now being used in the continental United States.
Its only a matter of time until the order is given to fire.

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 08:12 AM
Drones and black helos and FEMA camps, and lions and tigers and bears oh my! And don't forget about all the bombers and fighter bombers and tanks and APC's! Start packing and head for Somalia right now--you'll be safer and freer and you'll live the libertarian dream! Yee-haw!!

eg8r
05-01-2012, 08:25 AM
Well it is about to get worse. Obama is forcing these poor people to buy insurance they already cannot afford and they will not be able to use their food stamps at the strip club anymore.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You really should get your data straight.
Since the inception of The War on Poverty, tax payers have spent trillions of dollars on a policy that has given little to no return on the investment.


<span style="color: #CC0000">Bush spent trillionns of dollars on a policy that gave NO RETURN on the investment, and did nothing but play into the hands of our enemies! </span>

Seems to me the current putz in the oval office has given the green light to assassinate American citizens. </div></div>



<span style="color: #CC0000">LOL, You should get your own data straight.

Americans who denounce their country, and join up with our stated enemies in foreign lands, to train, and organize and inspire others to commit operations designed to bring our country down, and kill Americans, are no longer given rights as American Citizens.

They are seen as traitors, but gee, you righties LOVE and VOTE for traitors, so probably doesn't bother any of you righties, right?

G. </span>

Sev
05-01-2012, 10:38 AM
Sooooo.

How much has Obama spent in 3 1/2 years vs the 8 years of Bush?

Soflasnapper
05-01-2012, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You really should get your data straight.
Since the inception of The War on Poverty, tax payers have spent trillions of dollars on a policy that has given little to no return on the investment. </div></div>

Many people say that, and many people are wrong.

The last significant war on poverty measure was the CETA program, which didn't last beyond Reagan's first or second year. To get anywhere close to trillions you have to be including Social Security (begun 7 presidential terms before LBJ's war on poverty was declared). This is a false claim that illegitimately conflates all social spending with the war on poverty measures.

As for no effect, poverty fell from 17%+ to 11.x% in the few years for which the WOP was in effect, and then substantially canceled. The poverty rate has not been lower than what was achieved during that time since that time, to my knowledge.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sooooo.

How much has Obama spent in 3 1/2 years vs the 8 years of Bush?

</div></div>

We have all posted those facts on here a number of times.

We have all learned that the righties on here can't read charts.

Additionally, Obama has been left with paying the interest on all of Bush's borrowing, the collapsed Bush Economy, the two unfinished Bush Wars, and on all of his unpaid for programs, like unpaid for tax cuts, and unpaid for prescription drug programs, that turned out to be big give-aways for the Pharmaceutical Industry..

Did you think the interest and costs of all of Bush's spending, borrowing and wasting, ended the day he left office?

LOL...

This president has not outspent Bush! No Way! I've studied the charts on that many times....now you need to study them.

G.

Sev
05-01-2012, 12:17 PM
Just keep blaming Bush if it keeps you happy.
Remember a president cant spend a dime unless the congress critters approve it first.
Last I looked there were an awful lot democrats approving the spending.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 12:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just keep blaming Bush if it keeps you happy.
Remember a president cant spend a dime unless the congress critters approve it first.
Last I looked there were an awful lot democrats approving the spending. </div></div>

LMAO, and while the Republicans had the majority, under Bush, he never vetoed a single spending bill.

Not One!

But, as soon as the Democratic Party took the majority, the Veto Pen was waving non stop, under Bush, even though that period was only a year or so, before the crash, which we all know was a build up over the course of ten years, during which time, Republicans had control of the Congress, for all but months before the crash.

Dems were only in control of the congress from Jan. 2007, after a long Republican majority, and the crash came about in September, 2008!


You need to give the most blame to the Republicans, since they have had the majority in the house far longer over the last eighteen years or so, than the Dems have.

G.

Sev
05-01-2012, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just keep blaming Bush if it keeps you happy.
Remember a president cant spend a dime unless the congress critters approve it first.
Last I looked there were an awful lot democrats approving the spending. </div></div>

LMAO, and while the Republicans had the majority, under Bush, he never vetoed a single spending bill.

Not One!

But, as soon as the Democratic Party took the majority, the Veto Pen was waving non stop, under Bush, even though that period was only a year or so, before the crash, which we all know was a build up over the course of ten years, during which time, Republicans had control of the Congress, for all but months before the crash.

Dems were only in control of the congress from Jan. 2007, after a long Republican majority, and the crash came about in September, 2008!


You need to give the most blame to the Republicans, since they have had the majority in the house far longer over the last eighteen years or so, than the Dems have.

G. </div></div>

OH I blame both sides and think they should all be executed for treason.

Soflasnapper
05-01-2012, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sooooo.

How much has Obama spent in 3 1/2 years vs the 8 years of Bush?

</div></div>

Approximately $10.8 trillion to $20.8 trillion, if by 'spent' you mean the entire budget (although most of that, 84%, is non-discretionary and is spent under existing law, not by annual expenditures or budgeting).

If you mean in the discretionary budget, it's far more lopsided.

Second table, excel format (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its the truth.

</div></div>

Yes it's the truth everybody dies, but not everyone has to be a self absorbed, uncaring scumbag. Just a thought. </div></div>

And, the pollution whichh is causing so much illness, and poisoning the earth, actually also does make more poor people sick, because those are the areas targeted most often, by the corporate polluters.

Corporations, Withouot Conscience know that the more needy the region is, the easier it is to scam the people.

They need jobs.

They have no money to fight the corporate polluters.

The now have very little pull in the voting booth, thanks to the Fascist supreme Court.

If we don't stop the Republicans dead in their tracks, NOW, the country is doomed.

Democratics are NOT perfect, but they are our best hope for saving the planet, and enforcing pollutions standards, and fining those who do the most polluting.

It's very clear, Republicans fight against all of the efforts for clean, renewable fuels, annd defend the oil corporations, even when they have thousands of gallons of their filthy oil, spewing throughout the Gulf Of Mexico, the Republicans attack those who try to hold the filthy polluters to account.

G.