now....look over there!

Poverty is ignored in this country

Poverty does not fit in with the myth of "American Exceptionalism". Can't have us proles discarding the delusion that one day we will be rich.

That's what I heard too..

not your fault, but it is what it is.

The study it links to says that 80% are near poor "AT SOME POINT" in their lives. http://politicalblindspot.com/shocking-study-4-out-of-5-in-usa-face-near-poverty-and-unemployment/

Sorta like the Romneys when they were a young couple barely survivng on their trust funds.

Doesn't mean that 80% are near poor at this particular point in time.

I'm all for acknowledging the gap but that headline is totally deceptive.

Ask pretty much ANYONE "Have you ever gone to bed hungry?". Most of us can honestly say YES.
The poverty group is fluid, just like other groups. There are folks who are chronically poor, but these types of stories dont help them

that depends on the value of the stock options, which we are never told http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/08/fact-checking-ann-and-mitt-romneys-hardknock-early-years/56321/

Rent for the year was only $744, what about utilities, tuition, and food? Medical care? There were quickly two babies, who paid those medical costs?

Suppose they were living on $3,000 a year, which would be $18,000 a year in today's money. Today's poverty rate for a family of 3 is $20,000, and "near poor" is defined as 150% of the poverty line OR (as in the 80%) including one year of unemployment.

And that's another part of the thing, a person is part of that 80% if they are unemployed for a year. It doesn't matter if they are collecting $300 a week in unemployment, or if their spouse has a $40,000 a year job. Nope, they fall into that 80% simply by not having a job for a year.

That's part of what makes it a ridiculous measure.

As for the Romneys. Well, were they living on $3,000 a year or $5,000 a year? In order to be living higher than 150% of the poverty rate, they would have to be living on more that $5,000 a year. Were they? Could they? How much were the stocks worth? $10,000? $25,000? $100,000?

Well, Romney later borrowed $42,000 from his dad, so apparently he did not have $10,000 to make a down payment on a house.

Point is that even somebody like Romney, as a college student just starting out, COULD be part of that 80% who are near poor at some point in their life. That doesn't necessarily put those people in the same boat as others who are in the bottom 20% not just at ONE point in their lives, but for the vast majority of their lives.

Michigan, US Secretary of HUD, and a bigshot in the Mormon church and the republican party.

Mitt grew up in Bloomfield Hills: "Bloomfield Hills has the second highest income for a municipality with over 1,000 households in the country and the highest income in the state of Michigan"

"The median income for a household in the city was $170,790, and the median income for a family was over $200,000. Males had a median income of $100,000 versus $52,273 for females. The per capita income for the city was $104,920."

If you think Mitt paid for his own college and law degree (BYU, Harvard) -- well, I'm sure you don't, whatever you might be saying about poor Mitt's "near poverty".

Another rich boy who got into politics to screw the 99% and further enrich himself.

Yeah I don't live in "poverty". As Fox News says, I have a microwave and a refrigerator, and an Xbox and a TV. However, 4 weeks out of work and we are dead in the water.

your income is probably higher than mine.

Being two paychecks away from poor does not really make you "near" poor. A person could make $200,000 a year, for example, and still be two paychecks away from poverty, and wouldn't it be absurd to call somebody making $200,000 a year "near poor"?

Think of it this way. Right now, you and I are alive. BUT we are only one serious accident, a lightning strike, a stray bullet, or a heart attack away from death. Still that fact does not make either of us dead (poor) or near death. Somebody who got shot or got in an accident and is in ICU or the operating room is "near death". We, in spite of the uncertainties of life, are not.

You don't stop being alive just because IF something happens you could be dead, any more than you stop being "non poor" because IF something happens you could be poor. Not even if those things DO happen to lots of people. Until they actually DO happen, you are on one side of the bridge.

Me, with my $13,000 income, I could lose my job tomorrow and probably still be okay. I'd have to cut some expenses, but I think I could make it.

and a wife who is seriously disabled. Yes I am alive and my kids are fed and got some new clothes for Christmas. Woo hoo.

Yeah I make more money than you. So I guess living daily with the fear of going under is something I should all just suck up and do.

After all I haven't had even a cost of of living raise in 12 years. My boss bought a second private jet and a 4th house, so I should be happy that there is no money to give me a raise and just suck it up.

That's your idea of living? Spending every day in fear that at any moment your kids could be in the street. That one car accident or illness could sink you for good?

Yeah I don't stop being alive because I'm 2 checks from disaster, I also can't stop worrying about my children just because someone on the internet thinks my situation is just fine and dandy.

Is this what we now find acceptable? Work 70-80 hours a week, so you can barely hang on by your fingernails?

Would find the precariousness of your situation very familiar. And you have lots of company today too.

Internet hug?

life being analogous to poverty. One is not near death just because some disaster could kill them. At least not near death the way people in surgery or ICU are.

In the same way one is not near poor just because a disaster would make them poor.

Having three kids, whereas I have none, does not sound like the worst place to be. Being able to feed your kids and get them Christmas presents doesn't sound like the worst either. Nor does being able to support your uncle Charlie along with your three sons.

Worry is really up to you. Either you can do something about it, or you cannot. One would be productive concern, the other would not. No COLA in 12 years? Either you can get a better job or you cannot. If you cannot, then it would seem you have a fairly good job right now.

My point about making more money than I do, is that I, myself, bought a house, saved a safety net, put money away for retirement - on very little income. I usually expect people with higher income to be able to do what I did. If I can do it, I pretty much feel like anyone can. I'm not that special.

But with five dependents and a spouse who became disabled, you may actually have less income than I do - less disposable income. But still, you seem to have some of the same life of George Bailey.

member who has a house (free rent for you) or feeds you, etc., then you probably would not still be okay if you lost your job tomorrow unless you could find another job right away.

Sorry. But the numbers don't add up.

Cutting expenses? What expenses do you have on $13,000 per year that are not really essential?

Many of us live on $13,000 a year, slightly less, slightly more. The average Social Security recipient gets a little more than that.

Unless you have a trust fund or a lot of help from somewhere or unless you earned more at some point in your life and saved, you are not going to last that long if you lose your job. May depend on where you live, but let's be realistic, you cannot save much for those unemployed periods on $13,000 per year. Especially not if you have children (or even a dog).

I sure hope you don't lose your job and find this out the hard way.

Unemployment insurance won't pay you much if your income is $13,000 per year.

I think

After all, I am a math major, and everybody knows we can't add.

I own my own house, and it's paid for. My expenses seem to be about $1,000 per month. There's plenty I could cut. My phone for one. I hate those damned things anyway, but work requires that I keep one. You may note that I have a star here on DU. A minor expense, to be sure, but one that could be cut (sorry Skinner + EE).

I have perhaps $102,000 in the bank. Something like that (I am not going to stop and add it up for the purposes of this post it was $105,000 the last time I added it). Even with NO interest income, that covers my living expenses for 8.5 years. In three months I will be 53. Two years after that, even if I lost my job today, I could start collecting a pension (well, Brownback and the legislature may take that option away before they get done wrecking Kansas). Something like a mere $350 a month, but it would help the nest egg to stretch. By then I would have $80,000. And need less than $9,000 a year.

So I am good for another 8.88 years after age 55. In a mere 7 years, I start collecting social security, something like $900 a month. So I think my safety net is pretty good. I have worked to make it so. And have been near poor for most of my adult life (admittedly sometimes by choice) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002625762 Well 16 out of 25 years in 2010. I got that full time job in September 2011 until September 2014 which allowed me to really put some money away. I had perhaps $65,000 in savings before that.

I understand that things can happen, and that kids are expensive, but generally I think that people both CAN and should put some money away for a little bit of security.

Think about the cost of dental care. It is probably cheaper in Kansas, but here in California, a root canal and all the associated work will cost you thousands. If you have an accident, you are in deep trouble because your insurance co-pays for a hospital stay will break your bank in no time.

You are not doing nearly as well as you think.

Cancer -- end up on Medicaid. You spend down all your cash just to qualify, and then you have a lien on your house and property. They may be yours but borrowing against them will be out of the question.

Americans have no idea what it means to have a real safety net.

Sorry to worry you like this. But I've seen a lot.

If you are lucky, you will be OK, but . . . . . . . . . life tends to surprise and humiliate us.

And unfortunately, within a month or two (while I am still employed and insured) most of my teeth are going to be extracted and replaced with bionic teeth. I've already had about seven extractions. Heck, once I tried to have two root canals and the dentist drilled out two roots and decided she couldn't get the third and said it had to be extracted anyway.

I expect to be chewing through brick walls in slow motion going n-n-n-n-neh.

Yeah, cancer could wipe me out, and (perhaps worse) kill me inside of a few weeks. I've seen that happen to others. Heck there was that girl playing basketball. Younger than 21, in great shape, great enough to be an NCAA athelete. Dead within six months of diagnosis.

There is no guarantee that I will see next week. I could get run over by a car while biking to work tonight. Putin could sign legislation outlawing the USA and begin bombing within the hour.

I said I could survive a job loss - not a major meteor strike on my house with me in it (another thing that COULD happen).

I can talk like a pessimist, but I generally live like an optimist, walking through the valley of the shadow of death like I am not going to get torn to piece.

And so far, knock on wood, it seems to be working. Here I am, untouched and alive. Practically toothless, but still full of pi$$ and vinegar.

If the 1% paid their fair share.

Just buy boot straps and pull harder, it will then work out!

Sarcasm. (Don't know enough to find the tag for sarcasm so a manually typed one must suffice)!

Happy Holidays!!!

Lots to choose from.

type the word "sarcasm" with a colon before the first letter and after the last letter(no spaces between the colons and the word).

our first mistake is finding our worth in money. But then I saw a tee shirt the other day that said money over everything.

world, for evidence of which see the words of Mr. William Wordsworth:

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;—
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. Great God! I’d rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.

It seems like the new American Dream is to be able to afford food, shelter, and health care.

-except to join in the right-wing shaming agenda.

What party are you talking about?

You mean the Democrats, who sell out almost every time to the .01% too right?

It's just that the Republicans sell out 100% of the time, and they have no shame.

The day the Democrats start worrying about the poor 100% of the time instead of
10% of the time there will be no Republicans. Till then suck it up, and get used
to working harder for less, and less, and less.

That won't happen as long as billionaires own 90% of the media, and spend
all they want on elections. A politician would have to be a fool to challenge
their power/money with their ability to buy ALL of the ad time in front of the
next election.


Americans are stupid.

They tend to nominate batshit insane candidates far less frequently too. So they've got that going for them.

largely finance the campaigns of both and who offer lucrative employment and contracts once public service concludes. The bourgeoisie thus finances two factions who bicker over which shall represent its interests. Why would "our party" represent the interests of the poor and working class? The surprise would be if Dems actually did advocate for the poor and working class; in order to do so, Dems would be betraying their own class interest. Needless to say, the bourgeoisie couldn't give a flying fuck about the poor and working class, the occasional lip service offered by a Buffett or Soros notwithstanding.

but I dislike the use of the word "bourgeoisie" to define the capitalist owner classes in the modern era.
Bourgeoisie originally included professionals, tradesmen, civil servants, and managers (the middle classes or petite bourgeoisie), as well as the capitalist business owners.
The owner classes have successfully pushed the bulk of the middle class into the working classes over the last century, kind of destroying the whole concept of the bourgeoisie.

Well that's my take, anyway. One of the main reasons why I dislike the term bourgeoisie in modern parlance is that it badly defined to most people and thus confuses the focus of the issue that you rightly pointed out; that the capitalist class doesn't give a fuck about the the poor, working class, or the 'middle' class. Collectively these three groups are expendable wealth resources.

labor because they live off their 'rents' (or dividends and interest in the modern era), whereas the proletariat have only their labor to sell. The petite bourgeoisie bridge the gap, deriving some rents (from the small, petite, businesses they control) while also selling their labor from time to time.

As Shakespeare might say, a bourgeois exploiter by any other name would still smell like a capitalist pig.

That is a term that I like. Although capitalist pig has a nice ring to it as well.

Hamburg, Regensburg, etc.

So a bourgeois was a person who lived in a town as opposed to nobles who lived in castles or fortifications of some sort and peasants who lived on farms and in the villages.


Bourgeoisie

Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Wikipedia.
bourgeoisie
(bo͝orzhwäzē`), originally the name for the inhabitants of walled towns in medieval France; as artisans and craftsmen, the bourgeoisie occupied a socioeconomic position between the peasants and the landlords in the countryside. The term was extended to include the middle class of France and subsequently of other nations. The word bourgeois has also long been used to imply an outlook associated with materialism, narrowness, and lack of culture—these characteristics were early satirized by Molière and have continued to be a subject of literary analysis.
Origins and Rise

The bourgeoisie as a historical phenomenon did not begin to emerge until the development of medieval cities as centers for trade and commerce in Central and Western Europe, beginning in the 11th cent. The bourgeoisie, or merchants and artisans, began to organize themselves into corporations as a result of their conflict with the landed proprietors. At the end of the Middle Ages, under the early national monarchies in Western Europe, the bourgeoisie found it in their interests to support the throne against the feudal disorder of competing local authorities. In England and the Netherlands, the bourgeoisie was the driving force in uprooting feudalism in the late 16th and early 17th cent.

In the 17th and 18th cent., the bourgeoisie supported principles of constitutionality and natural right, against the claims of divine right and against the privileges held by nobles and prelates. The English, American, and French revolutions derived partly from the desire of the bourgeoisie to rid itself of feudal trammels and royal encroachments on personal liberty and on the rights of trade and property. In the 19th cent., the bourgeoisie, triumphantly propounding liberalism, gained political rights as well as religious and civil liberties. Thus modern Western society, in its political and also in its cultural aspects, owes much to bourgeois activities and philosophy.

Subsequent to the Industrial Revolution, the class greatly expanded, and differences within it became more distinct, notably between the high bourgeois (industrialists and bankers) and the petty bourgeois (tradesmen and white-collar workers). By the end of the 19th cent., the capitalists (the original bourgeois) tended to be associated with a widened upper class, while the spread of technology and technical occupations was opening the bourgeoisie to entry from below.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/bourgeoisie

One of the problems with Marxism is that it tends to characterize this potentially creative and independent group in society as something negative. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Depends on the facts. It's kind of a term that has become increasingly pejorative over time. Interestingly the more people move into towns and cities and away from farms and agriculture, the more negative is the view of the bourgeoisie -- the people living in towns and cities, neither belonging to the nobility nor to the serfs or peasantry.

So the meaning of the term has changed, but the need for a middle class of people who provide for themselves, who work, who do not rely almost entirely on a trust fund or income from passive investments or the ownership of property but also do not work the land and produce food is very great. Today, the bourgeoisie is less and less independent and creative and is being turned into a sort of urban serfdom. That is really sad.

"middle class" is as great as your final paragraph asserts. Aside from the fact that a middle class presumes, per se, both a 'lower' class and an 'upper' class, on what grounds does society need a 'middle class'? Instead, I would argue, we need a dictatorship of the proletariat and the death of the bourgeoisie (meaning those who live off 'rents'). As Big Bill Haywood of the IWW said some 100 years ago, ""When one man has a dollar he hasn't worked for, some other man is missing a dollar he did work for." That to me is some damned compelling logic and I've never seen an effective refutation of it.

working people. It still includes the working people in my view. We don't need class differences. But we have them. I just think that Karl Marx used the term bourgeoisie pejoratively and that in fact as the article from which I quoted points out, the term referred to the independent artisans and craftsmen who courageously lived in towns and brought down the feudal system of the Medieval time.

I just don't think that bourgeois should be a pejorative term. It simply means middle class. Most Americans are middle class including working people. We are increasingly an urban society with the need to have a stronger middle class of people who are not so terribly dependent on a system of corporations and bosses. The concentration of corporate ownership and control in the hands of so few -- the 1% and maybe a few percentages more -- is causing us to revert back to the feudal system. I would like to see a rising middle class that includes independently and cooperatively employed people. The bourgeoisie especially in German towns and cities included many members of the guilds -- working people. It was to a great extent in the beginning, the middle class in France that rebelled against the unfair tax system right before the French Revolution.

in the development of human society. Far from viewing the bourgeoisie negatively, Marx viewed the bourgeoisie as both largely inevitable and also as a largely positive development in human history. One can argue, for example, that the last time the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie aligned was the American Civil War, dedicated to smashing into oblivion the historical anachronism of chattel slavery. (Indeed, the Workingman's Association which Marx led sent Lincoln a congratulatory telegram upon his re-election in 1864.)

I notice you are not engaging the term 'proletarian' (or 'proletariat'). In traditional Marxism, these are urban industrial workers with nothing to provide to the economy but their labor. IOW, the proletariat do not own businesses or farms; they do not have trust funds. Instead, they have only their labor to 'sell' in the marketplace. By your constant invocation of a 'middle class,' you seem to try to elide the class antagonism that must exist between bourgeoisie and proletariat. But I don't think such elision can last forever. Since the election of Reagan in this country, we've seen a prolonged sharpening of that antagonism and concentration of wealth. (95% of the gains during the so-called 'recovery' of 2009-14 have accrued to the top 1%, for example.)

It is interesting to contemplate your suggestion that the fascists (Republicans mostly) would seek to revert back to a quasi-feudal state, with strong 'corporate' powers the analogue to the Medicis and Guelphs of yore, whereas today's Democrats advance strongly the classical interests of the bourgeoisie (strong central government at the expense of other potential power centers). But neither party represents the interests of the proletariat as far as I can tell. Marx would not be surprised at such a state of affairs but would instead see it as but one more confirmation of his theory of dialectical and historical materialism.

In Marxism, class is defined by ownership or non-ownership of the means of production (factories, machinery, farms, shops, etc.) Most Americans don't own any means of production, therefore they are not part of the bourgeoisie, which is how the term bourgeois is defined. If you have only your labor power to sell, you are working class, or proletarian. Most people in what is called the American 'middle class' actually fall into this definition. Most people don't own their own businesses. So, bourgeois does not simply mean middle class by the commonly used American definition of 'middle class', which is based on income and not on relationship (ownership or non-ownership) of the means of production.

The bourgeoisie of the middle ages were independent artisans and craftspeople, true, but they became today's capitalist ruling class. In Marxist terminology, this who the term usually bourgeois refers to, not the artisans and craftspeople, who are usually referred to as 'petite bourgeois', because after the industrial revolution, the big capitalists superseded the little ones. There are still artisans, craftspeople, small business owners and farmers, the classic 'true' middle class, but most people today fall into one of the two major classes, either the bourgeoisie (owning class) or the proletariat (working class). This has been the case ever since the industrial revolution, which was the era Marx wrote in and in which we still live in today. Historical progression is central to Marx's theory--history is not static, and historical change is driven by struggle between classes. Yesterday's emerging middle class displaced the aristocracy and became today's ruling class.

traced to the Lack of Economic Liberty! The Richer you are, the easier it is to acquire more and more wealth on the un-level playing field.

first with the most (1789, 1848 and 1870)

I make about $10k more a year at a new job now, and things are entirely different from the last 5 years. 5 years ago I was making a bare-bones $15 or so a month more than my fixed expenses. If the kids wanted to so anything like pick up some take-out food, or drive somewhere that would cost $10 in gas, or buy a birthday present for a friend, it was always a head-in-the-hands moment where I'd have to say "sorry, I just don't have any money now". And then eventually they just stopped asking for things or expecting anything. We got by, but it was terrible, really. We got a child tax credit every year and I squirrelled it away for the inevitable emergencies, dentist visits and so forth, and struggled and stressed to make it last until the end of the year. That went on for 4 hard years.

Now a little higher on the ladder, there's money in the bank and a decent cushion, and if I spend too much one month I just spend less the next month; not that that always works well, but the stress is mostly gone. I wouldn't say my life is similar to someone actually living in poverty now by any means or measure.

some bells. Without casting any aspersion on you, I must tell you that it sucks for kids living in poverty, as the cruelty of their more affluent peers and classmates is worse than the poverty itself. (Not sure if your kids got any of that shit but I"m guessing they got it at least a little bit.)

Your post deserves wider exposure, imo.

At one point we had such sketchy finances that I had to wear hand me down girls jeans. In high school.... ouch.
To this day I hardly ever buy clothes because I wear them til they are pretty ragged before buying new ones.

early adolescence spent in poverty. My wife says I have noticeable hoarding tendencies around food and basic amenities, I'm sure learned behavior from that time. In fact, the Christmas season brings back some of those bad memories, of getting shitty presents and knowing that there would be nothing better.

So I think I know where you're coming from.

I've largely moved on, but it has left me with a strong socialist bent and a distinct hoarding tendency as well.
....Although...that may be genetic, given my families disposition to not get rid of much, on the off chance that we may 'need it' at some point down the road....

I had a pretty hungry adolescence and young adulthood myself. I only feel secure if I have my cupboards, fridge, and freezer as full as possible. I also wear my clothes until they wear out. I had a Depression era mom, too, so that's also probably shaped me. I despise poverty and want to see it ended forever.

which I still feel a great amount of guilt over. I didn't have much growing up, my mom was great but I always imagined I would be able to do so much more for my kids when I had a family, big plans. It didn't work out so good. My oldest wound up going from A's to B's or worse, and more or less gave up on the idea of college - the idea of all that debt scares her, and she doesn't have the confidence she had when she was younger. My youngest is doing ok. We live in a decent neighborhood in a smaller city where there's a lot of poverty, so I don't think there's too much judgement, but its a big step from here to anyone else. "You can accomplish anything you set your mind to" is easy to tell a kid, but in spite of all good words and intentions they begin to draw their own boundaries of expectation when they are young, and their peers definitely help them.

drawing 'boundaries of expectation,' I was fortunate always to be surrounded by books as a child and adolescent, so that my mental horizons were never limited, even if material circumstances were. (I was also fortunate to come of age back when financially needy students could get financial aid packages that didn't require lifetime indentured servitude, unlke your oldest. Again, though, I hope your oldest recognizes that capitalism has caused this and not his or her efforts.)

- exactly so.

The details of high school poverty are too uncomfortable to type.

To this day I avoid buying clothes, and when I do, I wear them until they fall apart.

Although it took this household about six years to get that $ 10,000 extra each year.

It means a lot to know that if I buy a magazine, it won't cause the checks to bounce, etc.

Or that if I lose the six dollar package of over the counter meds, I can purchase a new one.

I fall asleep thinking about pleasant things I might do the following weekend, not thinking about how easy it might be to end it all and avoid the endless worry and endless hopelessness.

And armchair upper middle class Amerikkkans wonder why the police are afraid of a revolution?

Are you saying America isn't awesome? Ps Crappy headline should be changed.

And those who insulate themselves from real world.
Locked up tight in climate controlled high rises while we suffer from the climate swings they bequeath us.
Spoon feeding themselves cheery news from the media outlets they control. While we, as our forefathers, try to cling tightly to what is left of our free press.
Buying off our democracy and utilizing its powers for corporate expansion across the globe.
All supported, labored towards and funded by short sighted, money hungry maniacs who care nothing about what they accomplish with the life they are given. Only to assist as much as they can in a battle whose victory cry is the total betrayal of what so many fought and died to protect and labored and struggled to leave us.
One can continue to wear the blinders. To pretend that someone, somewhere, who really cares is in charge. That the buck does indeed stop somewhere. That it isn't them for God's sake! It can't be *gasp* me! When all along, the only villain they ever had any control over stares at them dumbly from a dim reflection.

These are literally Dr. Evil numbers - they are the real enemies here.

of investments for retirement. If they are really Democrats, the people who are supposed to actually give a fuck about us, then we are truly fucked.

I really with this story would die. The situation is bad and getting worse but please...... can we stop with the lie that 80% of Americans are in or near poverty?

Watering down actual poverty by claiming Americans with solid middle class lifestyle but nervous about job security is not productive in helping pull people out of poverty.

And, what we are going to do in a couple of years when he leaves office.

mean while we have no time or energy to complain. The perfect storm.

.. the "unemployment" figures are great and Obama is doing a helluva job!

GO HILLARY!

Yay, Hillary!
(as if I needed it at this point)

Will movies feature US slums? Will Germany start to send foreign aid to the US?