[w4rma]

Howard Dean's essay, "How the Poor Live Now," appears in the December issue of Vanity Fair (http://vanityfair.com/) magazine. Dean looks at the current crisis of poverty in America through the lens of a physician and a governor. The magazine is on newsstands now, but the essay, excerpted here, is not availible at Vanity Fair's website.

Dean describes his experiences as a medical student at Albert Einstein College of Medicine:

Every day in the Bronx, I saw low-income patients who had left serious illnesses untreated because they couldn’t afford to go to the doctor. It was a terrible cycle being played out in slow motion before my eyes: a small, treatable condition appears; it goes unattended, grows into a serious health risk that finally erupts with a vengeance; and the patient lands in the emergency room. The bill is astronomical, and the family is bankrupted.

Any sane person could conclude that this was not the most efficient way for our health-care system to be run, nor the most humane. I had no doubts that capitalism was the best possible economic model (I had been raised as a stockbroker, after all), but there were gaps, inconsistencies, and plain cruelties that the market alone would never address, and not only in health care. It seemed to me that local communities and national government had roles to play in easing the pain of economic inequalities.

Governor Dean continues with an analysis of how the past two decades have drastically changed America's attitudes toward--and solutions for--poverty.

What we have seen since the 1970s is a governmental effort that has ended up directing even more wealth into the hands of those at the top, while the safety net for those at the bottom slowly frays. This has resulted not in a rising tide lifting all boats but in an ever shrinking middle class and a breakdown of our American community. Most critically at risk are families like Robert’s [one of Dean's patients], which have had the odds against them from the beginning, and which now have no recourse available to them other than that offered by a government whose anti-poverty program, they feel, is rapidly becoming little more than “Get a job.”

If only it were that simple. Some American families are on the verge of permanent hunger in spite of the fact that the parents may be working not one but two or three jobs. Their problems are usually not limited to putting food on the table: many such families cannot house themselves or afford to seek treatment for their medical problems. Poverty knows no prejudice: my first patient on my first E.R. rotation in the Bronx was a 13-year-old African-American girl who was dealing with complications from an unwanted pregnancy; my first patient on my first E.R. rotation in Vermont was a 13-year-old girl in exactly the same circumstances, but Caucasian. The face of poverty is rural, it is urban, it is black, white, Hispanic, male, female, young, and old. It is an American face. These families work as hard as any of us, and many work harder than most, and yet many spend their lives one paycheck, one accident, or one medical emergency away from total financial ruin.

And the problem is not confined only to those below the poverty line. As I’ve traveled the country, I’ve felt nothing so much as a sense of fear. People everywhere are afraid that very little separates them from disaster, that their jobs are not secure, and that if they lose their jobs there won't be another one waiting. They know something is wrong in our country, and they don’t know what they can do to make it right. Most are good people who work hard. I have seen their joys, their frustrations, and their attempts to change their reality. The problem is not one of the motivated versus the lazy. It is larger and deeper, and if we are going to address it, we must do it honestly.

Ultimately, the question is: What kind of country will we be? Will we be a country that declares anti-poverty efforts a national embarrassment or a national priority? Will we be a country that values escalating tax cuts for the highest income brackets, or one that values the services that tax cuts inevitably kill through financial starvation? Will we accept the problem of poverty as a consequence of capitalism, or will we strengthen capitalism by restoring fairness? Will we choose leaders who practice a politics that polarizes, or leaders whose politics address the common good, targeting not just those most likely to go to the polls but also those who don’t or can’t? In short, will we close our eyes and ignore one another, or will we stand together as a community?

I do not accept that there is no solution. I know, because in cities and towns across America I have seen remarkable ones. I believe that, since poverty stems first and foremost from a breakdown in community responsibility, community-based solutions can lead the way in helping us understand how to overcome it.
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002289.html#more

[Pilgrim]

And the problem is not confined only to those below the poverty line. As I’ve traveled the country, I’ve felt nothing so much as a sense of fear. People everywhere are afraid that very little separates them from disaster, that their jobs are not secure, and that if they lose their jobs there will be [not] another one waiting. They know something is wrong in our country, and they don’t know what they can do to make it right. Most are good people who work hard. I have seen their joys, their frustrations, and their attempts to change their reality. The problem is not one of the motivated versus the lazy. It is larger and deeper, and if we are going to address it, we must do it honestly.

It's life. Get used to it. Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is absolutely certain. The forces of natural selection are at play here and if you can't compete you become extinct.

Pilgrim

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Ultimately, the question is: What kind of country will we be? Will we be a country that declares anti-poverty efforts a national embarrassment or a national priority?

It already is an embarassment. $3,000,000,000 spent on the war on poverty and no movement. The percentage of people in poverty is the same now as it was in the 60's when this "crisis" was solved by social programs.

I grew up poor. I succeeded. I got some breaks, and I had some setbacks. What is your problem?

Will we be a country that values escalating tax cuts for the highest income brackets

I got a tax cut. I hire people. Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

It's life. Get used to it. Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is absolutely certain. The forces of natural selection are at play here and if you can't compete you become extinct.

Pilgrim, amen to that.

[Standing Wolf]

As I’ve traveled the country, I’ve felt nothing so much as a sense of fear.

He's off his medications again.

[ACP230]

Dean's solution to the problems he mentions: Raise Your Taxes.

Somehow, I don't think that will help.

[Bruce H]

If Howard Dean was such a hot shot physician why did he quit for politics? In politics you don't get sued for malpractice with a bad diagnosis or procedure. What is the reason he left practice? Something doesn't fit here. Life isn't fair. Isn't now nor ever has been. With all the insurance, prices are set for most every procedure there is. There is absolutely no reason for competitive medicine. That and all the rules and regs that apply. How many parasites are sucking off the healthcare industry without producing any care? There are several reasons for the shape we are in and poverty isn't the sole one.

[Bill Hook]

Sorry to be heartless, but F--- the poor; I'm worried about the lives of the vast majority of employed Americans who can't get ahead because of high taxes and other burdens imposed by the govt., such as .gov-funded scholarships that penalize those whose income is "too high" (= around the median), etc.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Amen to that. I pay an ungodly amount of taxes (>$80,000). My daughter is starting college. No, there will be no "financial aid" for her. So I pay for all of the "poor" and for my own. Well, I only work 14 hours a day, maybe I can work 2 more:rolleyes:

[w4rma]

If Howard Dean was such a hot shot physician why did he quit for politics?…
The two enrolled in residency at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, she one year behind him because he completed an accelerated program at Einstein. They were married by a judge at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York City in 1981. Dean opened the internal medicine practice in Shelburne, and Steinberg joined him following a fellowship in hematology begun at McGill University in Montreal and completed at the Vermont medical school.

As Dean delved deeper into politics, first winning a legislative seat in 1982 and the lieutenant governorship in 1986, Steinberg says, she paid little attention. He was still practicing medicine, doing politics part-time.

The situation changed in 1991 when Governor Richard Snelling died, elevating Dean to the state's highest office.

Asked about her memories of the day, Steinberg recounts frantic shift-swapping between herself, Dean, and their partner in the medical practice. When pressed to recall how she felt about her husband's new responsibility, Steinberg seems at a loss.

"I thought it was an important job, and I knew he could do it," she says slowly. "But it really didn't change our lives that much. We didn't have to move, the kids didn't have to change schools, and I didn't have to change my work."
…
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/08/22/deans_wife_focusing_on_career_not_campaign/

…
Inspired by Jimmy Carter's grassroots rise to the presidency, Dean got involved in Democratic politics. He was elected to the Vermont Legislature in 1982. He served until 1986, when he was elected lieutenant governor. In 1991 then-Gov. Richard Snelling dropped dead of a heart attack while cleaning his pool. Dr. Dean received the news while examining a patient. According to legend, his response was: "Holy ????!"
…
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/article.asp?ArtID=5972Amen to that. I pay an ungodly amount of taxes (>$80,000).(1/35%)*$80,000 = ~$225,000 (an estimate based on only income taxes and assuming you aren't using any loopholes)

~$145,000 a year isn't exactly struggling. Why can't you show a little compassion for folks who make a whole lot less, work more hours per week than you do, whose spouses also work and without the amenities?

[Zundfolge]

As I’ve traveled the country, I’ve felt nothing so much as a sense of fear. People everywhere are afraid that very little separates them from disaster, that their jobs are not secure, and that if they lose their jobs there will be [not] another one waiting.
Thanks to people like HIM fostering the fear in the first place!

Its liberal politicians and "journalists" and their doom & gloom demagoguery that have led people to believe they are "one paycheck away from homelessness", "one blood transfusion away from aids", "one blown fuse away from a nuclear power plant exploding", "second hand smoke will kill you", "global warming is about to kill us all" and all sorts of other BS designed to trick us into giving our lives over to them to rule.


What a putz. :rolleyes:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Did I mention that I grew up poor? I started college at 26, graduated at 30, because I had no financial means to go. Worked my way through college after serving in armed forces. Worked in a professional office for last years of college, learned the biz, and I am now on my own. I have only recently started pulling down that kind of income.

I have worked all my life to get to this station. I work 12-14 hour days to keep up with all the admin paperwork for a business (did I mention I hire people that work for me) and to continue its growth. I have invested considerable sums of time and money to get here. Ask my wife, she calls me ghost-dad. I am currently out of town for another week+ period trying to earn money.

Of all the nerve that you suggest that I should help those less fortunate than me. They have the same opportunities I had.

Hard Work + Initiative = Success

Are they less fortunate than me? Am I more fortunate than they? No, I worked harder because failure was not an option. My advice to them is to get a fire under their ???. THEY are not my responsibility.

[w4rma]

Did I mention that I grew up poor?No offense, but I'm not interested in your past. You worked hard and did well, economically.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

No. I did well for my family and their future.

[w4rma]

No. I did well for my family and their future.Yes, good job "ghost-dad".

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Look at it this way, I fund a lot of roads, fire protection, police protection, welfare, AFDC, social security, medicare, tuition, GAIN, NEA art grants, jails, mass transit, government health care, defense, political matching funds, a bridge in West Virginia, a highway in Mississippi, USDA subsidies, national forests, national parks, endangered species protection, EPA actions, ........

Without people with initiative, our social experiments will never get funded.

[w4rma]

Look at it this way, I {{help}} fund a lot of roads, fire protection, police protection, welfare, AFDC, social security, medicare, tuition, GAIN, NEA art grants, jails, mass transit, government health care, defense, political matching funds, a bridge in West Virginia, a highway in Mississippi, USDA subsidies, national forests, national parks, endangered species protection, EPA actions, ........

Without people with initiative, our social experiments will never get funded.I fully agree. I never disagreed on these points. But, "F--- the poor"? ("Amen to that.")

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Being poor is a preventable condition.

[w4rma]

Being poor is a preventable condition.…
• "His view of life starts at about $250,000 a year and goes up."

• "I think the president's philosophy is that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-zingers-usat_x.htm

[Bill Hook]

Sorry, but this country isn't about the poor, but those who work. I'd like to see how many of the "poor" are substance abusers so we can figure out how many are actually deserving of some sympathy. Meanwhile, I'll devote most of my sympathies to those who hold jobs, yet get a large chunk of their checks stolen, and their future sacrificed, to support leeches who didn't have enough gumption to stay in school and not use drugs. Think how much more money that we'd all have to spend (and create more jobs) if we weren't forced to contribute to the non-productive elements of society.

Being poor IS largely preventable - A) Get an education and B) don't abuse drugs, legal or otherwise. My pity is really for the children of such people, who don't have a hand in their socio-economic status.

(1/35%)*$80,000 = ~$225,000 (an estimate based on only income taxes and assuming you aren't using any loopholes)

~$145,000 a year isn't exactly struggling. Why can't you show a little compassion for folks who make a whole lot less, work more hours per week than you do, whose spouses also work and without the amenities?

Um, you forgot FICA, which is another 15.7% for self-employed. You forgot property taxes, sales taxes, state and local income taxes, etc. as well. Most Americans work nearly 6 months/year to pay their tax burden.

[Geech]

I don't understand how politicians can be so stupid. The majority of the tax burden will always be on the middle class. Why? Because when the upper class gets squeezed, those people who control the means of production, they squeeze the middle and lower classes. Squeeze harder to try and even it out, and the upper class squeezes harder too.

The only thing increasing taxes does for you is restrict economic growth. That can be useful when you want to reduce inflation, but when people are worrying about employment, it's incorrect economic policy.

[Bill Hook]

And businesses squeeze the consumer w/ price increases to cover their burden. Neal Boortz makes the point that "evil" big business, or any other business, pays no tax; individuals pay the taxes through lower wages paid by their employers, depressed dividends and share prices, and increased prices for goods.

[Andrew Rothman]

~$145,000 a year isn't exactly struggling. Why can't you show a little compassion for folks who make a whole lot less, work more hours per week than you do, whose spouses also work and without the amenities?
I don't know 7.62FullMetalJacket, but I'll bet that he is a good guy with a great deal of compassion for his fellow man.

But confiscation ain't compassion, no matter how you slice it. No one else has a RIGHT to what I earn.

Don't get me wrong. I'm okay with paying my way. I think the Army, roads and the FDA, for example, are good things.

But why is the liberal idea of "compassion" always seem to mean soaking the rich?

Why were the biggest tax cuts given to the wealthy? Because THEY ARE THE ONES PAYING ALL THE TAXES!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.Par.0008.ImageFile.jpg

I never thought I'd be quoting Rush Limbaugh, but read this article:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

Briefly:Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners.

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

Sure, why believe Rush? So check the numbers yourself at the IRS: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

[Destructo6]

~$145,000 a year isn't exactly struggling. Why can't you show a little compassion for folks who make a whole lot less, work more hours per week than you do, whose spouses also work and without the amenities?
Compassion is one thing and voluntary. When compassion is compelled, it's called "extortion".

Because I make dang little money does not mean I'm entitled to 7.62FullMetalJacket's money in any way, regardless of how much he may make.

[w4rma]

Data on the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is collected every three years by the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The most recent survey was conducted in 2001. Analysis of those survey results will be available in the Spring of 2003. Until that time, the most recent wealth distribution data is from the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finances.
http://www.ufenet.org/images/Inequality.org/Dist_Net_Worth_98.gif
http://www.ufenet.org/images/Inequality.org/Share_HH_Wealth_22-98_small.gif
http://www.ufenet.org/images/Inequality.org/Share_Stocks_Mutual_Retire.gif
http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

[Geech]

What does that prove, w4rma? Yes, there is a huge, widening gap between the wealthy elite and most of society. Yes, if this trend is not reversed it will lead to social unrest and possibly even violent revolution.

Does that change the fact that raising taxes reduces the GDP and therefore quality of life for all Americans? Does that change the fact that the wealthy already pay the vast majority of federal income tax even to the point of being disproportionate with their income? Does that change the fact that what we're discussing is extortion, robbery with a different label?

No, not one bit. Dean doesn't have the answers.

[Andrew Rothman]

Your charts do prove conclusively that the rich are...well...rich. What's your point?

Explain to us how this makes confiscation moral.

[w4rma]

http://www.ufenet.org/images/Inequality.org/Share_HH_Wealth_22-98_small.gif
Look at the trend. Look what happened the last time the inequality of resources was so extreme.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
Jobless recovery lasting longer than economists expected (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6497474.htm)

…
The Great Depression brought an end to GOP tax cuts. Faced with a ballooning deficit, President Herbert Hoover proposed a major tax increase, including new excise taxes and a broader, somewhat steeper income tax. In a striking display of bipartisanship, Democratic leaders embraced the plan. They even went Hoover one better, trying to replace the regressive excise taxes with an even more regressive national sales tax. It was a major reversal for the party, which had long opposed any sort of sales tax. It was also a huge blunder, prompting a revolt among rank-and-file Democrats. When the dust finally settled, lawmakers agreed to a host of new excises, as well as steeper, somewhat broader income taxes. Widely considered both prudent and distasteful, these changes constituted the largest peacetime tax increase in the nation's history. For Republicans, the law brought an unhappy end to Mellon's long campaign for tax reduction. For Democrats, it established the regressive starting point for New Deal tax reform.
…
http://taxhistory.tax.org/Articles/1920s.htm

[MicroBalrog]

Being poor is a preventable condition.


And we should ban Evil Black Rifles, too!

[Geech]

Please, you're trying to argue against economic facts with anecdotes. You know what brought us out of the Depression despite tax increases? Massive. Deficit. Spending.

All Democrats basically have a two-pronged economic plan: increase taxes and increase spending. I wonder what they'll do when we're paying our entire incomes into the government and are completely reliant on them. I suppose their jobs will be done then.

[MicroBalrog]

All Democrats basically have a two-pronged economic plan: increase taxes and increase spending

I don't.

[Geech]

I don't.

The Democratic party has infected Israel?

Anyway, you should read that as "all Democratic politicians" since the economic plans of Democratic voters who aren't politicians are basically irrelevant.

[CaesarI]

Look what happened the last time the inequality of resources was so extreme.

And this one time, at band camp, everyone at bread, and water, and we all got the flu. That's why I don't eat bread, or drink water anymore.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

Rebuilding America's Economy
The economic policies of the Bush Administration are misguided, unfair, and unsuccessful.

They fail to meet the basic standard of economic justice: decent, well-paying jobs for all who want them. They are policies that have created a legacy of debt for future generations. Huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthy are starving essential government services like education and homeland security and forcing states and local governments to increase sales, income, and property taxes. While America’s wealthiest individuals -- those in the top 2 percent of income brackets -- receive the bulk of the tax cuts, America’s middle class is left behind.

Since this Administration took office, nearly three million Americans have seen their jobs disappear. The unemployment rate has risen to over 6%. Nine million people are unemployed, and countless more have joined the ranks of discouraged workers and dropped out of the labor market entirely. Millions of Americans, from young people just out of school, to others who are the victims of massive layoffs, are underemployed in jobs that fail to take advantage of their talents or reward their reasonable expectations. Too many of our fellow citizens are laboring at subsistence-pay levels without benefits or prospects of advancement.

Month after month, for nearly three years, manufacturers have fired more workers than they hired, and the world-class manufacturing sector that has been the heart of America’s strength continues to shrink.

Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit now estimated to be more than $450 billion this year soars out of control, with no relief in sight. The Bush Administration philosophy has become “borrow and spend” and let our children and grandchildren pick up the pieces.

But the truth is that this Administration’s economic agenda is about far more than budgets and deficits. The ideologues gathered around the President have a more ambitious goal -- to repeal the progressive legacy of the twentieth century. They want to return to a time when private wealth was insulated from the graduated income tax, and the many labored for the benefit of the few. They would ignore the widening gap between rich and poor, shred the safety nets that provide at least some protection for the unfortunate, and dismantle the safeguards that protect consumers and workers alike.

I believe we must take drastic actions to repair the damage that this President is inflicting on our economy.

As Governor for more than 10 years, I guided the Vermont economy through two Bush recessions. Despite economic uncertainty, I was able to reduce taxes, maintain a balanced budget, expand health care, and increase funding for education.

My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals: Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans. Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation. Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation. Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.I know what it takes to generate economic growth. As President, I will work tirelessly to put the American economy back on the road to prosperity not just for the favored few, but for all.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy

[Geech]

Ahahahaha! Yeah, a potential Bush opponent in 2004 is a great source for unbiased assessment of Bush economic policy.

Yeah, Bush's economics are killing the nation, you know, even though:

1) The economy is cyclical by its very nature and prosperity breeds recession.

2) The economic slowdown actually started before Clinton left office.

3) This was the shortest recession in the history of the nation.

4) Greenspan expressed agreement with Republican economics.

You're one in a million, w4rma. I've never seen anyone not employed by a political party spew forth propaganda as faithfully as you have. :barf:

[CaesarI]

economic justice: decent, well-paying jobs for all who want them.
I'll vote for Dean if he agrees to hang himself (by the neck until dead) if there is anyone in America, within 4 years of his term of office, who wants but does not have a "decent, well-paying job" Oh... I'll be generous and let YOU define (now) what qualifies as "decent" and "well-paying".

What a bunch of nonsense. What's he gonna do? Arrest every business owner who gives someone a job that isn't "decent" and "well-paying"? What a bunch of nonsense.

Oh I know! We'll make the minimum wage $100/hr, let's see... at 8hrs per day, 5 days per week $208,000, with some off time, we'll round down to $150,000 of course there might be some inflation... which would mean my $150,000 would be worth $15,000 but hey, I'll be a millionaire (just like an Italian)! Or... alternately, everyone who doesn't make $150,000/yr gets fired, and every business in the country disappears because they can't afford labor.

Your economics knowledge AMAZES me.

-Morgan

[Geech]

Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget,

By the way, folks, this sort of economic policy is actually far more harmful than anything Bush is doing right now. You see, when you try to force the government to balance the budget every year, and recession hits and GDP decreases, the government has to increase taxes and/or decrease spending to avoid deficit spending. The problem with that is that these activities restrict economic growth. This exacerbates the already poor economy and ends up making the business cycle even worse. Simply more evidence that Dean doesn't have a clue about economics.

As far as complaints about the national debt are concerned, I admit that I, too, would like to see Bush decrease what he's spending right now. He added a lot to the military, to social programs, and he created a lot of new bureaucracy at the same time. However, that's not really a pressing concern. Although the national debt of our nation is larger than that of any other nation, when you compare it to the size of the economy it's not that bad. I don't recall off the top of my head what percentage of our GDP the national debt is, but it places us somewhere near the middle if you were to rank nations of the world in terms of that measurement. FYI, Germany and Japan, the second and third largest economies in the world, have nationals debts greater than 100% of the GDP of those nations. That's considerably more than America's debt.

[Sergeant Bob]

Why is anyone arguing with this guy? You're not really arguing with him, you're arguing with a bunch of cut and paste articles and charts!:confused: This guy lives under a bridge! (not to be confused with people from the Lower Peninsula of Michigan)

[MicroBalrog]

The Democratic party has infected Israel

Would you consider Itzhak Rabin?:D

You know if we closed down the DEA AND the ATF, there'd be plenty of money to spend on the safety net.

[Marko Kloos]

You know if we closed down the DEA AND the ATF, there'd be plenty of money to spend on the safety net.

A stolen dollar is still a stolen dollar, whether you spend it on buzzguns for drug warriors, or on bribes for the entitlement crowd. In the end, it's still a dollar taken by force from the person who earned it.

[MicroBalrog]

In the end, it's still a dollar taken by force from the person who earned it.

And?

[ojibweindian]

Sorry to be heartless, but F--- the poor; I'm worried about the lives of the vast majority of employed Americans who can't get ahead because of high taxes and other burdens imposed by the govt., such as .gov-funded scholarships that penalize those whose income is "too high" (= around the median), etc.

I'll agree to that. My paycheck is almost 1K lighter a month; in Dean's attempt to help the poor, he's gonna tax me into poverty.

I went into the military to serve my country and get money for college. I busted my hump working a full time job, took care of my two children, and took 15-18 semester hours in college.

I never got food stamps, welfare, subsidized rent, medicare or medicaid. It can be done, but one must have ambition to do it. Most of the poor choose to be poor.

[ojibweindian]

And?

Stay out of my wallet!

[MaterDei]

I'm afraid that Howard Dean himself seems to disagree with you. His net worth is $3.8 Million. ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2083791/ )

Why doesn't he do something with is OWN money to help the plight of the poor. Why can only my money and your money and everybody elses money help the poor?

Here are some other Dean positions:

- He voted against the partial birth abortion ban
- He signed the Vermont same-sex union bill into law
- He wants more funding for the 'Drug War'
- He is against school choice
- He believe that environmental standards should be tied to free trade
- He believes in trade tariffs to support unions and environmentalists
- Supports the existing AWB
- He wants to repeal Bush's tax cut and invest in social programs
- He wants to require companies to hire more women and minorities

MaterDei

[MicroBalrog]

Most of the poor choose to be poor.

Not true. In modern society, it's inevitable that a certain amount of people is unemployed.
Do they choose to be so?
Do others choose to be handicapped? Ill?

[Preacherman]

Folks, this thread seems to have turned into a pro- and anti-Dean discussion. I don't see it related to RKBA, civil liberties, etc. in any meaningful way. I let it run initially, because the policies of our political parties do have an impact on RKBA, and I was hoping that this would emerge in the discussion: but that hasn't happened. Sorry, but this one's done.