Poor America- Panorama documentary.

james1v · #1 by **james1v** » Feb 17, 2012 1:53 am

I'm currently watching a documentary on BBC1, Its showing people living in drains, abandoned caravans, holes in the ground. Is this what America has come to? No social housing? No minimum guarantee that the poor will not fall below a certain level of poverty? No care for the poorest children? It says 50 million people, that's almost the population of the UK, are without health care. That's barbaric!

Its fooking medieval! Do Americans think so little of their neighbours, that they wouldn't pay an extra, say $50.00 per year, to help eradicate this third world, situation, that is on their door step? The same situation, that seems to me, puts every citizen under risk, due to those poor people, raiding your homes, due to not being able to feed or pay for health care for their families.

Are tax breaks for companies, worth this social devastation? Man, know thy self! The founding fathers, should be turning in their graves. Europe, who's religious and to some extent politics, they rejected, have advanced so far ahead of current American government thinking, i'm sure the founding fathers would have rather returned to Europe, rather than stayed in this medieval, third world, their descendents have created.

It defies logic, that such a technologically advanced nation, lacks the altruism, to use that technology, to advance the whole of their population.

HughMcB · #2 by **HughMcB** » Feb 17, 2012 2:02 am

GreatApe · #3 by **GreatApe** » Feb 17, 2012 2:17 am

james1v wrote: No social housing?

Awwwwww!!!!! ... You said, the "S" word, james! ... WE'VE STOPPED LISTENING!

(On a serious note, thanks for mentioning the documentary, I want to try to have a look at it.)

--GA

willhud9 · #4 by **willhud9** » Feb 17, 2012 2:19 am

Hmm. Richmond has a lot of impoverished people and I imagine some are actually living on the streets but we do have shelters where homeless people can spend the night, and get a free meal.

My family lucked out with my dad being a veteran. So he, my mother and my brother until he's an adult are covered under that health insurance. I'm not

So I am extra careful with myself.

I support healthcare if run on the state level. Meaning Virginia provides healthcare to the state etc. What Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is something I would love to see implemented in every state. But it is not the role of the federal government to manage every individuals healthcare. I lobby constantly for a healthcare system in my state.

endersgame · #5 by **endersgame** » Feb 17, 2012 2:26 am

james1v wrote:I'm currently watching a documentary on BBC1, Its showing people living in drains, abandoned caravans, holes in the ground. Is this what America has come to? No social housing? No minimum guarantee that the poor will not fall below a certain level of poverty? No care for the poorest children? It says 50 million people, that's almost the population of the UK, are without health care. That's barbaric!

Its fooking medieval! Do Americans think so little of their neighbours, that they wouldn't pay an extra, say $50.00 per year, to help eradicate this third world, situation, that is on their door step? The same situation, that seems to me, puts every citizen under risk, due to those poor people, raiding your homes, due to not being able to feed or pay for health care for their families.

Are tax breaks for companies, worth this social devastation? Man, know thy self! The founding fathers, should be turning in their graves. Europe, who's religious and to some extent politics, they rejected, have advanced so far ahead of current American government thinking, i'm sure the founding fathers would have rather returned to Europe, rather than stayed in this medieval, third world, their descendents have created.

It defies logic, that such a technologically advanced nation, lacks the altruism, to use that technology, to advance the whole of their population.

I remember my first time going to the U.S. when I was 18. I had a rose tinted view of what America was. Several visits later and my opinion has changed dramatically. A casual stroll down the centre of Chicago will reveal a level of homelessness that even for a guy who has stayed in London for several years, is simply shocking. It's nowhere as bad as Rio or Moscow, but I was taken aback. The other thing that struck me about America is that their identity is wrapped up in their politics. Being what they call "socialist" (which the rest of the world calls the centre left) is considered un-American. They are suspicious of welfare the way most Brits are suspicious of the EU. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

FACT-MAN-2 · #6 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 17, 2012 4:00 am

willhud9 wrote:Hmm. Richmond has a lot of impoverished people and I imagine some are actually living on the streets but we do have shelters where homeless people can spend the night, and get a free meal.

My family lucked out with my dad being a veteran. So he, my mother and my brother until he's an adult are covered under that health insurance. I'm not So I am extra careful with myself.

I support healthcare if run on the state level. Meaning Virginia provides healthcare to the state etc. What Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is something I would love to see implemented in every state. But it is not the role of the federal government to manage every individuals healthcare. I lobby constantly for a healthcare system in my state.

Canadian healthcare is delivered and managed exactly in this manner, every Canadian Province operates its own healthcare system for its population.

The federals contribute about half the funding and set standards. But the provinces run the healthcare delivery systems. They are much alike of course but they're not clones, each province has its unique healthcare needs and situations. In my province of British Columbia our healthcare program is called "BC Med," and I have a credit card like card issued by them to me which allows me access to healthcare of whatever kind may be necessary or needed anywhere in BC. I could get a heart transplant on that little card.

Now, I do pay a premium, which here is a function of your tax reported income. Mine's low so my premium is low, about $900 a year for two adults. I'm happy to pay it, more than happy when I see what people are paying for healthcare insurance in the States. My daughter the airline Captain pays $12,000 a year! Just for herself! :yuk:

AlohaChris · #7 by **AlohaChris** » Feb 17, 2012 4:10 am

See, in America, if you feed the hungry, clothe & shelter the poor, people will call you a saint and give you community service awards to recognize you.

If you ask why it is so many people don't have food clothes & a home, they call you a fucking communist and run you out of town on a rail.

This is where the charity money goes...

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes provided:

1) No tax money goes to 'faith-based' initiatives.
2) Universal Healthcare was included
3) My government representatives were no longer allow to profit from the corporations they are supposed to be regulating.

FACT-MAN-2 · #8 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 17, 2012 4:40 am

james1v wrote:I'm currently watching a documentary on BBC1, Its showing people living in drains, abandoned caravans, holes in the ground. Is this what America has come to? No social housing? No minimum guarantee that the poor will not fall below a certain level of poverty? No care for the poorest children? It says 50 million people, that's almost the population of the UK, are without health care. That's barbaric!

Its fooking medieval! Do Americans think so little of their neighbours, that they wouldn't pay an extra, say $50.00 per year, to help eradicate this third world, situation, that is on their door step? The same situation, that seems to me, puts every citizen under risk, due to those poor people, raiding your homes, due to not being able to feed or pay for health care for their families.

Are tax breaks for companies, worth this social devastation? Man, know thy self! The founding fathers, should be turning in their graves. Europe, who's religious and to some extent politics, they rejected, have advanced so far ahead of current American government thinking, i'm sure the founding fathers would have rather returned to Europe, rather than stayed in this medieval, third world, their descendents have created.

It defies logic, that such a technologically advanced nation, lacks the altruism, to use that technology, to advance the whole of their population.

In my observation, the fact that there are so many poverty-struck people around and this appears to go largely unnoticed by the media and hence the public is generally unaware of it ... arises from a mindset which says, "If it isn't seen or talked about, it isn't happening."

Many Americans would watch that documentary and scoff, "That's not America!"

And they'd do so because they simply don't know, and they think such conditions aren't possible in their country because they hold such an outdated view of things, a view that has massive blind spots in it. Most Americans just don't see reality very well.

I do expect the situation might well have been over dramatized in the documentary. Documentarians are sort of pushed into that by wanting to make a dramatically compelling picture, a hard hitting picture that might gain them a little career boosting notoriety. Hey, everyone wants to succeed, eh?

A whole infrastructure of support for the poor in America arose to serve the horde of Vietnam veterans who came home from Nammy so fucked up they could't hold a job and ended up homeless on the streets, a veritable tsunami of them. They were concentrated in the sun belt but they were everywhere. By 2000 most of them had been taken care of in more permanent ways, disability benefits or lifetime PTSD benefits for example. Some died too.

So the infrastructure that had arisen to support them began to fade away, and by 2008 it was in the toilet, and it would even get worse when cities and States began feeling the crunch. Since the crash in the fall of that year, the number of people living in poverty in America has skyrocketed, from around 25 million in 2000 to more like 40 million today. And those folks face a worn out and very disheveled and underfunded and thinned out aid network from which they can't hardly get any help.

Help is on the way (!)

Improvements are being made, cities have responded to the crisis, albeit in most cases in only limited ways, cities are too broke to do much. But many homeless shelters have been opened and some low income housing started and everyone's on Food Stamps. It'll be a long hard slog to a situation in which aid and support for the poor is adequate, and the ranks of the poor will likely only grow as time passes.

America's once great middle class has been dealt a harsh blow, one from which it may never recover. The thinner it becomes the thicker the ranks of the poverty struck below them becomes.

"Yeah, we was doin' fine, Elmer had a good job over at the factory and we had one of them new kinda plasma TVs, then that recession thang hit and Elmer got downsized out of his job and now look at us, we're livin' in the damned car! Say, buddy, ahem, could ya spare a dime?"

FACT-MAN-2 · #9 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 17, 2012 5:05 am

endersgame wrote:
I remember my first time going to the U.S. when I was 18. I had a rose tinted view of what America was. Several visits later and my opinion has changed dramatically. A casual stroll down the centre of Chicago will reveal a level of homelessness that even for a guy who has stayed in London for several years, is simply shocking. It's nowhere as bad as Rio or Moscow, but I was taken aback. The other thing that struck me about America is that their identity is wrapped up in their politics. Being what they call "socialist" (which the rest of the world calls the centre left) is considered un-American. They are suspicious of welfare the way most Brits are suspicious of the EU. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Poverty and homelessness in America is not concentrated so much that it embraces large communities; it's often mixed into urban and inner city communities where it can appear to be relatively unobtrusive. The US is vast land, ocean to ocean, and even though its population now exceeds 300 million there are still vast open expanses that have little population. Most Americans live East of the Mississippi River. The rest live along the West Coast, and in between, well, not much.

The homeless in America tend to migrate to areas that enjoy mild winter climates, Arizona, Southern California, Las Vegas, Nevada, wherever its warm in winter. So we do see concentrations in these areas, State campgrounds filled with people living in tents or old mohome rigs or trailers or just little encampments people have carved out in river bottoms or up some gulch. Most small towns avoid the plague by exercising harsh loitering laws and other measures that tend to keep the homeless at bay. Not to say they run 'em out of town but they have their ways.

It's not something that's going to go away any time soon and will likely only become more widespread and worse as the economy continues to sputter along, with no great action on the horizon. Income inequality is so severe it almost guarantees a rising number of poverty struck people. And not much beyond the efforts of small local volunteer groups will come to their aid. Nobody has the money.

GreatApe · **#10** by **GreatApe** » Feb 17, 2012 7:16 am

To add to what AlohaChris said above and to second his opinion and insight, I would only add:

APPRAISE THE LORD! : TAX CHURCH PROPERTY!

--GA

FACT-MAN-2 · **#11** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 17, 2012 7:18 am

A relevant article out of LA ---

Los Angeles Struggles With Homeless Crisis, Lack Of Shelters

By Marcus Baram
First Posted: 02/16/2012 11:34 am Updated: 02/16/2012 4:53 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... os+Angeles

Los Angeles may be known for the glamor of Hollywood and the glitz of Beverly Hills, but it's also the homeless capital of America.

More than 51,000 homeless people live in Los Angeles County, from Antelope Valley to the South Bay, with double-digit percentage increases in the number of families, seniors and veterans over last year.

Most alarming is the rise in the ranks of the unsheltered homeless -- more than a fifth of homeless families are without shelter, nearly double the proportion found two years ago, according to the latest count conducted by the city.

This shelter crisis has persisted for decades, yet the county has rarely invoked a 25-year-old California statute that would allow it to open public facilities to shelter the homeless and to alter zoning codes to permit shelters in neighborhoods that are now off-limits to them. The county did authorize year-round shelters in 2004, under pressure from several vocal members of the L.A. City Council, but they currently serve only about 2,000 individuals -- 4 percent of the homeless population.

"It's really bad. We have more new homeless people than we've ever had -- people who lost their jobs and lost their homes via foreclosure," said Brenda Wilson, who runs New Image, the largest emergency shelter in the county, with more than 660 beds.
Of those, 436 are used year-round and the rest during the winter months only. Wilson said her shelter, which also provides counseling, literacy courses and assistance finding more permanent housing, turns away roughly 75 men nightly due to lack of space.

There is a lack of political will and community support for more shelters, said Wilson. "This has been a constant fight in the 23 years that we have done winter shelters and it's gotten more and more difficult to get funding and approval," she said. "It's all about 'not in my backyard.'"

City Councilwoman Jan Perry, who recently announced her campaign for mayor, is credited with pushing the county to fund year-round shelters. And though L.A. County spends about $10 million a year on the year-round shelter program, she said it's a battle every year to overcome resistance. "Many communities don't want to have homeless people in their neighborhoods," Perry said.
She has encouraged the county to use public facilities for shelters "but they have declined repeatedly," she said, adding that closed hospital space could be used to provide supervised care to homeless individuals with illnesses.

Perry acknowledged that there also are practical challenges, noting that many city-owned buildings in her district, as well as city armories, could not be effectively used as shelters, either due to earthquake code requirements or size restrictions.

In addition to the shelter crisis law, California's Housing Element Law requires municipalities to submit plans every five years that include a zoning code provision for homeless shelters and affordable housing. But many cities and towns, including some in L.A. County, are not in compliance with the law, said Perry.

CONTINUES...

I'd expect there are an additional 50,000 homeless in LA County that aren't in the official count because they're in fringe areas in low profile modes and rarely seek official aid or support, they just bongo bucks their way through or do petty crimes. There are lots of areas on the fringes of LA where such persons could maintain fairly easily and not be seen much, in the hills, mountains, and deserts that surround LA, and even some areas in the city where this can be done, Baldwin Hills, Whittier Hills, Santa Monica mountains, upper Echo Park, old Chavez Ravine, Topanga Canyon, Big Tujunga Canyon, and places along the Arroyo Seco.

Some of these folks never even want to see a government man.

Rick · **#12** by **Rick** » Feb 17, 2012 7:22 am

I wouldn’t go overboard lauding technology, James; replacing workers by increasing the level of mechanization is one way by which employers cut cost.

Many American face poverty, yet GM is well in truly back in profit although many jobs are now permanently lost:

“For most Americans, the bigger concern is jobs. The Center for Automotive Research has estimated that more than a million jobs were saved by the U.S. auto industry bailout. The actual number of workers once employed in the sector, though, may never return. From 2000 to 2009, the number of people employed by the auto industry fell from 1.13 million people to 500,000. While that number is expected to creep back to more than 750,000 if sales continue to rise, the reality is many of the remaining jobs may be history.

More important, perhaps, those jobs that do come back will pay less and carry fewer benefits. U.S. automakers have adopted the two-tier pay system that is also credited with helping the airline industry. New workers are being hired at $15.78 an hour, or about half the rate of those hired under older union agreements. Of course, few can argue for the sustainability of pay-and-benefit packages at two to three times that level in today’s global economy. (Journalists and politicians cited autoworker pay rates as high as $75 an hour around the time of the bailout, though some $15 of that was from retiree benefits, and others dispute the calculations.) But it’s a stark reminder that the auto industry is no longer a reliable ticket to a middle-class life. While GM’s 47,500 blue-collar workers will now get a $7,000 profit-sharing bonus, that’s a fraction of the money worker groups have lost under new contracts.”

http://www.businessweek.com/finance/rec ... 62012.html

Jeffersonian-marxist · **#13** by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Feb 17, 2012 7:31 am

America is one of the most thoroughly ideologized nations on the planet, and as such is capable of creating an environment where these situations are possible. Zizek says that America is the most 'capitalist' nation on earth, which unfortunately means that we will be front and center when the collapse arrives.

FACT-MAN-2 · **#14** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 17, 2012 7:38 am

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:America is one of the most thoroughly ideologized nations on the planet, and as such is capable of creating an environment where these situations are possible. Zizek says that America is the most 'capitalist' nation on earth, which unfortunately means that we will be front and center when the collapse arrives.

As the biggest economy on the planet it will go down first and make the most noise when it does, like the infamous shot heard round the world.

And then there really will be hell to pay! :doh:

You do not want to be around for that! :naughty:

biscuit · **#15** by **biscuit** » Feb 17, 2012 7:42 am

I watched the programme a few days ago, America should be ashamed of itself :crazy:

But the years of anti-all things social brainwashing have been effective so I don't see much changing soon. Selfish, nasty, morally bereft country - and so many Americans seem to like it that way

FACT-MAN-2 · **#16** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 17, 2012 7:50 am

biscuit wrote:I watched the programme a few days ago, America should be ashamed of itself

But the years of anti-all things social brainwashing have been effective so I don't see much changing soon. Selfish, nasty, morally bereft country - and so many Americans seem to like it that way

I think the majority of Americans see themselves as being relatively immune from financial catastrophe and they all have a "get rich" plan in motion and are confident of pulling it off. They just need another six months!

A recent poll of American men between the ages of 24 and 35 years showed that half of them thought they would be millionaires within a decade, or less. So the dream lives on, even though it's fast becoming a fantasy for many and they are in for a rude awakening as things unfold.

Jeffersonian-marxist · **#17** by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Feb 17, 2012 8:09 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:A recent poll of American men between the ages of 24 and 35 years showed that half of them thought they would be millionaires within a decade, or less. So the dream lives on, even though it's fast becoming a fantasy for many and they are in for a rude awakening as things unfold.

A perfect example of how pervasive the ideology is. A lie told by the wealthy to the not-so-wealthy in order to construct and maintain a system that promotes an uncomfortable amount of income inequality, and the sad thing is that most people buy into it.

Seabass · **#18** by **Seabass** » Feb 17, 2012 8:32 am

james1v wrote:I'm currently watching a documentary on BBC1, Its showing people living in drains, abandoned caravans, holes in the ground. Is this what America has come to? No social housing? No minimum guarantee that the poor will not fall below a certain level of poverty? No care for the poorest children? It says 50 million people, that's almost the population of the UK, are without health care. That's barbaric!

Its fooking medieval! Do Americans think so little of their neighbours, that they wouldn't pay an extra, say $50.00 per year, to help eradicate this third world, situation, that is on their door step? The same situation, that seems to me, puts every citizen under risk, due to those poor people, raiding your homes, due to not being able to feed or pay for health care for their families.

Are tax breaks for companies, worth this social devastation? Man, know thy self! The founding fathers, should be turning in their graves. Europe, who's religious and to some extent politics, they rejected, have advanced so far ahead of current American government thinking, i'm sure the founding fathers would have rather returned to Europe, rather than stayed in this medieval, third world, their descendents have created.

It defies logic, that such a technologically advanced nation, lacks the altruism, to use that technology, to advance the whole of their population.

I missed that one. But I saw this one:

It defies logic, that such a technologically advanced nation, lacks the altruism, to use that technology, to advance the whole of their population.

infiniteentropy · **#19** by **infiniteentropy** » Feb 17, 2012 8:38 am

Thanks for pointing out the programme, I will have to watch it. I see mention of the 'S' word, but to me this where it has all gone wrong. Its' become a bogeyman, but in reality the word should be civilised. I want to live in a civilised society, money should be a means to an end and not an end itself.

Globe · **#20** by **Globe** » Feb 17, 2012 8:44 am

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:America is one of the most thoroughly ideologized nations on the planet, and as such is capable of creating an environment where these situations are possible. Zizek says that America is the most 'capitalist' nation on earth, which unfortunately means that we will be front and center when the collapse arrives.

Bolded part.
That's funny, because I have always seen the US more like the USSR when it comes to that.
I mean.... for a nation so hung up on "personal choice" and "individualism" there is a scary amount of fear of falling outside the once established Opinion-pattern.
God forbid that you should develop opinions (or even worse... behaviours) which are not main-stream.
:nono: