The commies are upset that all of their demonstrating doesn't get them anything here in the US. They seem to have more success with these tactics in other countries.

Right wing nuts are sometimes upset that right wing nuts can't seem to stage large demos like the commies do. P. J. O'Rourke jokes that right wingers don't demonstrate as much as commies because they all have jobs.

A large demonstration is supposed to change minds by what is, in essence, a show of force. One side collects and deploys these thousands of bodies in a quasi-military movement and observers are supposed react like good primates to the demonstration of power and change their political views.

Unfortunately for commies, this gimmick only works if the observers feel intimidated. A mass of men may be frightening in muscle-age communities but machine- and information-age observers react differently.

An undisciplined mass of sloppily dressed men, womyn, the differently gendered, and victims of color is not calculated to impress. Those who see these demos on TV screens are removed from the scene and unlikely to be frightened.

And the commies of America have given up the gun. They have deliberately disarmed themselves. Commies are overrepresented in the 60% of American households that have no firearms. (All stats are from Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms May 1997.)

Whereas right wingers are heavily armed. They are (greatly) overrepresented among the 10 million Americans who own 50% of US guns.

The effect of this is that armed individuals are unlikely to respond to the "argument" represented by a massed demonstration. Since those with arms are capable of "putting the street under fire" whenever the need arises, unarmed commie mobs do not evoke a primate dominance-subordinance reaction in this country as they do in other countries.

You'll see some rapid turn of national attitude if you think the friends and families of the fallen will not mind this kind of response from reactionary elements and you don't understand American outrage. Despite the failing attempts of commercial media to keep a lid on it under growing anger, it won't take much to figure who and what is doing the killing and who is spending the common bounty of this nation on themselves.

I believe the structure of criminality has become painfully apparent to most everyone. Your ideals will desolve in chaos.

Do you actually beleive this sort of fear that you spout sheepdog?

Surely you don't actually think that the average American walks around fearing and raging at the sort of shadow conspiracies you invent do you?

Maybe you do. Seems like an awful way to live.

I must have misunderstood this bit-

" Since those with arms are capable of "putting the street under fire""

my mistake. I assumed you were refering to using firearms to control

" unarmed commie mobs"

And that sort of attitude brings out my "shadow conspiracies" but you see, there's one important concept you may have overlooked.

Unless you can keep The People satisfied in their daily life at the system they live in, there will be resistance. Human nature is such that, we as a species, tend to extinct threats to our survival (see any dire wolves or cave bears lately?) and the information age is something the elites never counted on. A part of which explains YOUR presence. If you can't evolve to cope with the culture of technology in a spiritual/philosophical sense rather than a reactionary reflex, your days may well be numbered. Figure it out by yourself.

Unless you can keep The People satisfied in their daily life at the system they live in, there will be resistance.

There would be resistance even in Utopia, since masochists and liberals would be unsatisfied.

Human nature is such that, we as a species, tend to extinct threats to our survival (see any dire wolves or cave bears lately?) and the information age is something the elites never counted on.

Given your keen perception you would stop supporting the harmful failures of socialism. Extremely few migrate from America to socialist Europe and only the insane embrace the Middle East in its present incarnation.

A part of which explains YOUR presence. If you can't evolve to cope with the culture of technology in a spiritual/philosophical sense rather than a reactionary reflex, your days may well be numbered. Figure it out by yourself.

The conclusion is the same: I am right. You are wrong.

(Yes, that is joking).

'There would be resistance even in Utopia, since masochists and liberals would be unsatisfied.'

sticks and stones. Socialists ( people, not the corporations, which do fine under socialism ) have an uphill struggle as it is a real threat to entrenched self serving power. Many programs have been devised to thwart public socialism up to and including bloodshed. There are many examples if you wish me to elaborate.

Power and Wealth.

For some reason, the folks who stole most of the wealth and acquired the cloak of authority want to keep it.

Socialists ( people, not the corporations, which do fine under socialism ) have an uphill struggle as it is a real threat to entrenched self serving power.

Bigger threat socialism is against freedom, not power. It same old song: "We know what is better for you than you do."

Big business can go bankrupt, but government never go away. Take over whole life. Managed economy is disaster.

Many programs have been devised to thwart public socialism up to and including bloodshed. There are many examples if you wish me to elaborate.

Violence not owned by any group, but all. Socialism have few takers anyway. No communes or much voluntary socialist community in America, living together? No. Just lobbyists and activists try to get cut of tax pie.

Power and Wealth. For some reason, the folks who stole most of the wealth and acquired the cloak of authority want to keep it.

Government too is greed. Afraid you not understand what wealth is or where come from. Very few inherit, most wealth earned. Corruption yes but more people happier buying Wal-Mart crap. Funny.

-Very few inherit, most wealth earned.- wrong. Provide support for statment.

Hanz have no examples or analysis. You relative of Bush Admirer?

Your homework for you I will not do.

Ask several of you leftist friends. One is bound to confirm truth.

Most wealth is acquired by labor, because most people are laborers, but inheritance is critical to long term capital accumulation.

Wealth accumulation is like friction. It takes a lot more energy to start moving forward, than it does to keep moving forward once you've overcome friction. Once you acquire some capital, it's a lot easier to keep doing it.

As for a managed economy -- it already exists. The monetarist economic policies in place now are a managed economy. They actually work to keep economies stable. The private sector utilities are a heavily managed economy, largely free of competition.

As for voluntary communes in America: what are condos? There are millions of condo units in America. Maybe tens of millions. They have the patina of capitalist land ownership, but, structurally, the complex associations more closely resemble a corrupt socialist pseudodictatorhisp.

I'm talking about the top 1% who own or control 90% of the resources on this planet and that is earned income? You seem to have forgotten some very powerful ruling class families such as the Morgen, Rockefeller, DuPont, Harriman, Bush, Kennedy, Hienz... who really run this county through interlocking boards of directors, trusts, lobbyists, thinktanks etc.. Most of the real wealth is ownership and influence.

Please don't bore me with trivia under a few hundred million.

Let's look at your hero Mr. Gates. Self made cut throat captain of industry, another criminal. And he'll pass it on to his now well healed new rich children who will become like most of the old money, predatory or extinct.

Most wealth is acquired by labor, because most people are laborers, but inheritance is critical to long term capital accumulation.

-----Few people inherit vast fortunes like the Waltons. And remember, Sam didn't inherit billion from *his* parents.

------Even if the socialist dream of ending all inheritances happened tomorrow, someone would find a way around the laws and weasels like Kerry would still find wealth to marry.

Wealth accumulation is like friction. It takes a lot more energy to start moving forward, than it does to keep moving forward once you've overcome friction. Once you acquire some capital, it's a lot easier to keep doing it.

-----Makes sense. It's almost like physics.

As for a managed economy -- it already exists. The monetarist economic policies in place now are a managed economy. They actually work to keep economies stable. The private sector utilities are a heavily managed economy, largely free of competition.

-----I think 'managed economy' here means the Committee deciding how much grain the people will need this year, not governing legislation.

As for voluntary communes in America: what are condos? There are millions of condo units in America. Maybe tens of millions. They have the patina of capitalist land ownership, but, structurally, the complex associations more closely resemble a corrupt socialist pseudodictatorhisp.

------You can pro/con(do) anything. Your very first statement is the difference between socialism and capitalism. No one is FORCING the entire population to live in condos.

------At a condo you're not allowed to paint the outside any color you like, but you don't have to mow the lawn either. You also own your unit and arre free to sell it, unlike an apartment.

------Something to ponder; if a simple socialist model like a a condo association can be corrupted by power, what makes you think a complex leviathan like the Euro-peasant Union has a chance of survival?

I don't think just because someone is rich they are necessarily evil.......

The odds are against it but there is hope.

But wealth isn't worth, that's for sure.

To Sheepdog:

All the big wealth - people with over a few million dollars in assets - is passed on through inheritance, extending itself well past the rich person's death. This accumulated capital is always used to purchase property, or rented out as investment capital (purchasing bonds).

Small wealth is also passed on through inheritance, and it makes a huge fucking difference. Having some land puts you one big step above people who rent. Being born with that kind of inheritance means life will be easier, and you'll be more likely to gain the education and skills to maintain your own middle-class status.

Bill Gates is a good example: he was a rich kid, so he went to a nice school, where he met other rich kids. They could start a company, because they had family capital, as well as the specific knowledge about technology markets, governments (he was selling to the government), and law (one parent was a lawyer).

To the guy drinking the Windex:

My argument is that all inheritance tends to cause the rich to become richer. Even the small inheritances make a big difference.

It's "the logic of capital" -- it tends to accumulate unless you do something to stop it. A huge inheritance tax to fund the general budgets would be one way to stop it.

>I think 'managed economy' here means the Committee deciding how much grain the people will need this year, not governing legislation.
You don't get it do you? The government manages the interest rate, and that regulates the overall growth of the economy. Also, the government *does* manage the food supply, funnelling surpluses to the USDA warehouses, then to very poor people. They also maintain the food stamp program, another way to regulate the farm economy. So, your argument has zero merit.

> You can pro/con(do) anything. Your very first statement is the difference between socialism and capitalism. No one is FORCING the entire population to live in condos. At a condo you're not allowed to paint the outside any color you like, but you don't have to mow the lawn either. You also own your unit and arre free to sell it, unlike an apartment.

My point isn't that people are forced to live in condos. My point is that people actually like some degree of socialism. They don't want freedom, if that freedom means giving freedom to other people to do as they wish. They'll choose repression and conformity instead.

That said, people are "forced" into condos to some degree. A 0k condo is a lot safer than a 0k house, in Los Angeles. If I had the capital, I'd choose the house, though. I value some freedoms more than others.

In a condo, you don't get to mow your lawn. The condo association fees pay for the socialized lawn care.

People like taxing themselves to maintain their condo. If you pay (a tiny) 0 a year in condo fees (aka, "rent"), you're paying the same as sales taxes on ,000 of spending, or property tax on an ,000 property. In other words, condo fees are roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of other taxes, yet, all it really gets you is a clean pool, a mowed lawn, trash service, and a corrupt condo association.

The government, by comparison, is inexpensive.

Also, the difference between a condo and an apartment tend to disappear if the prices are high, and not rising. (When they are rising, people speculate.) They disappear completely if the prices drop. That's because people take out these 30-year loans are really just being self-managed tenants who are renting money from the bank. They will never own the full equity in ths house. If the market deflates (and it will), then people will default on their loans.

The latest innovation is the "interest only loan", where you buy no equity for a few years. You're just renting your home from the bank, and also paying property taxes on it. It's a fucking joke. It's also capitalism at its finest -- screw the people who need money by offering them "easy credit".

Then tell the suckers that they are "capitalists" so that they don't go around demanding that bankers get lynched, when banks fail.

>Something to ponder; if a simple socialist model like a a condo association can be corrupted by power, what makes you think a complex leviathan like the Euro-peasant Union has a chance of survival?

The two things are not related. The former becomes corrupt because people are stupid. The latter can persist because people are greedy.

Then a solution would be to have no taxes at all untill you reach a value of property depentand upon the average wealth where progessive taxation occuirs.

I came across a site that advocates for no sales or income taxes, and only land taxes and use taxes.

Google "Henry George" of "Geonomics" and it'll come up.

The idea is interesting, and it sure beats the current craze for a flat tax or more sales tax (which is really a regressive tax disguised as a flat tax). It's like a flat tax -- on land.

The idea is that you take your city budget, and divide the tax burden by land area. Then, people who own land pay tax. I think they would also favor an additional property tax based around the market value of the land.

The current proposal for a half-cent sales tax to fund cops is a great example of why a land/property tax is better than a sales tax. Sales fluctuate with the economy, year by year; land values fluctuate more slowly. Because of this, cops (and other city workers) are constantly being hired and laid off, depending on the budget. What the hell kind of government needs to add 9,000 cops in one year?

Of course, the problem is this: land owners have the most political clout, so they pay the smallest tax: 1% of property value (as assessed in the past). That's 1/8th of the sales tax, and 1/15th of the income tax.

"



ARE there any good rich people?



The odds are against it but there is hope.



"



There's his true colors showing.

After all how could anyone be "good" after working hard and becoming successful?

Yes, no taxes below a national income average set by popular referendum. Above that point of income/ownership a progressive tax begins, also set by popular referendum to cover funding for projects/national business also set by popular referendum.

All wealth is included such as land, businesses or other less obvious caches as universities and active trusts and off shore holdings. If you do business with the people of the nation, you are assessed. Period. All profits are subject to taxes such as speculative stock transfers and dividends. Period. I know,Sedition. That kinda talk is enough to git ya hanged.

"After all how could anyone be "good" after working hard and becoming successful?"

Well... it depends on how they get rich.

A person making 0,000 off their labor is still, in some ways, working class -- though I think they are often classed as petit bourgeois.

To break past that ceiling on wages, you have to collect royalties, own property and rent it out, buy and sell goods, or pay others to work for you and skim some profit off their labor. Once you're profiting off someone else's labor, you can very quickly become "bad". At some point, you may stop working, even in a managerial capacity, and just live off others' labor: then it's a struggle to remain "good".

...and I mean the top 1% of wealth, People like Bush Admirer would most likely have less taxes to pay structurally ( unless Mr. Admirer is far more wealthy than I personally suspect
Democracy is the bane of the ruling class.

"Their idea of good government is one that discourages free enterprise and provides disincentives for success. America would be a pretty bleak place to live and work if they were in charge."

They do NOT want to discourage people from becoming wealthy. What they want to do is sit back and WAIT for them to become wealthy and then relieve them of their wealth. The sheepdogs of the world are simply pimps. Too lazy to carry themselves but smart enough to know that socialism without a host to suck off of will never work.

Over two Trillion in lost accounts from the military last GAO audit which Dan Rather aired on Sep 10 2001. There goes the neighborhood.

Special interests ( read stock holders in banking institutions and defense contractors etc. ) would have their nails trimmed while quality of life through reinvestments in national recovery of air water and land use would follow a popular mandate. Corporations would have open books and follow their renewable charter. nah nah nah.

"Once you're profiting off someone else's labor, you can very quickly become "bad". At some point, you may stop working, even in a managerial capacity, and just live off others' labor: then it's a struggle to remain "good"."



Why?

What's so sacred about "labor".

Following your logic, it would be better to simply not PAY someone for their labor and let them become unemployed. Better for everyone right?

Nonsense. Profiting from somone elses sacred labor is what employs these laborers to begin with. Obviously.

Are you suggesting that the entire labor class just be fired since it's wrong to profit from them?

Or, wait a minute, you probably think that the owner of a company should just split all the profits equally between himself and his "laborers". That's a great incentive to grow businesses and create new jobs. Of course to hire someone is to exploit them, so it's ultimately best if we all simply give up, stop working, dissolve all businesses and simply go back to hunting and gathering.

And as for sheepdogs ridiculous idea of not taxing at all below a national average income level, well that certainly won't get you hanged but it will get you mocked. For stupidity.

Congratulations, you've figured out a way to not only encourage and motivate but actually reward anyone who would rather not waste their time in school or at an oppresive job.

Hell, sigh me up. You payin'?

Because we simply don't need to finance already lucrative enterprises like car manufactures or failed Savings & Loans with such things as bailouts or honor ridiculous cost overruns from fraudulent defense contractors as well as the long line of insider companys who are generously given no bid, open ended supply contracts. Pigs at the troth. But they wear ties so I guess it's legal.

Pretzel economics...

Sheepdog's idea is not ridiculous at all. People who make minimum wage basically don't pay an income tax. If you make above that, and don't get a full 40 hours a week, you also don't pay income tax.

In other words, the typical fast food or Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target worker pays little to no income tax.

Profit isn't the first motive for reorganizing work for efficiency. Usually, efficiency itself is the motivation. Profit comes later. For example, people all over will make some effort to make their work more efficient, despite the fact that there's no guaranteed profit in it. At least, not in the short term.

A business does not need to grow if the owners don't demand a return on the investment above what they put in (adjusted for inflation). A business can grow slowly, and attain a stasis, growing along with the population. I think this would be a 3% to 5% growth rate. A lot of small businesses do this. For example, a restaurant can grow to a staff of 50, and then stop growing, and be considered a success.

Most businesses, however, do grow. That restaurant owner will probably plow some of her profits into other ventures, like real estate. They may also simply start paying more for labor, to retain the skilled workers, so that the owner can relieve herself of doing so much managerial work. That's a kind of growth, but it's reflected in quality of life.

On the other hand, it's also possible that the boss can become a big jerk. Another growth strategy would be to contain labor costs, and plow profits back into expansion. That's the kind of growth that's demanded by a lot of stockholders, when they overpay for a piece of the company.

The fallout of this kind of growth is: more people on welfare, more people using county health services, more people under the poverty line, more people who quaify for section 8, and so forth. At this point, you're looking at public services subsidizing private company expansion.

If your "profit is good" philosophy is carried out ad absurdum, you're going to justify the use of undocumented immigrant labor, because it uses fewer public services than regular impoverished labor. Taken another step, it justifies the existence of the slave labor economy.

Unfortunately, both the above conditions exist, and the motivation for both is greed: a desire to maximize the profit taken from other peoples' labor. It's enable by another simple fact of life: some people will work simply to survive, because they have no other options.

What's sacred about labor? Labor is what creates wealth. Without labor, nothing happens. Labor is morally entitled to all the wealth it creates.

What I mean isn't that, if you make a table and it sells for 0, the worker who made it is entitled to 0. The worker is entitled to a share of their labor contribution to the table. The sales person, the manager, and others are also entitled. The only person who's suspect in this situation is the person who owns the company.

The owner is entitled to something. Some would say she's entitled to some profit. A few would say she's entitled to no profit at all. A few would say she's entitled to all the profit possible. It's this last argument that a lot of "capitalists" are making.

I think it's a dead end. If you exploit each worker to the maximum, you eventually end up with a society full of completely impoverished workers. Eventually, the "market" is so broke, that there is no market anymore!

The optimal situation is when profits are minimized, and everyone gets their fair share, or something close to it. This way, capital accumulation is slowed, and money is kept in wide circulation.

You avoid bullshit like the "dotcom boom" when the capital hoarded during the Reagan years was finally unleashed, followed by the "bust" that we're in now, when the capital's been distributed, but people are gunshy to invest money in new businesses, and are plowing it into real estate instead.

Anyway, you need to really think harder about these things. Your simplistic vision that businesses "create jobs" is very one-sided, and doesn't reflect reality. Businesses are created to satisfy a perceived market demand for something; they organize labor to efficiently meet the demand. They'll compete. The most profitable business will reduce the number of jobs required to fulfill the goal of meeting the market demand.

Thus, you can even say that in the process of "job creation" there's also "job elimination". Both things happen simultaneously. But propagandists for capitalists interests aren't about to say that they openly value job elimination (though job elimination usually raises stock values).

Under a socialist regime, businesses are all but owned by the government as the People's welfare is controlled thru Nationalized Everything.

Government produces nothing while corporations create wealth. As a socialist, shouldn't the demand be for MORE welfare for everyone, businesses and serfs (er, subjects, er, "citizens," yeah, that's it, citizens) alike?

Under a fascist regime, government are all but owned by the businesses as the People's welfare is sacrificed in the name corporate profits.

...did you just call me stinky?

I can take a showerand fix that, but you'll always be a Bush Admirer.

"We're all better off because companies like Pfizer, Apple, IBM, and Chrysler our out there. "

Perhaps, but I definetely take exception to the company that produces the ludicrously overpriced and shamefully underpowered MAC.

The Emperor's new computer.

Utter shite.

Free market. Is it free or is it heavily subsidized? And the drive is a raving drunk's through people's lives everywhere without any accountability and that's your corporation. What else...oh yeah:

'We're all better off'

we're ALL better off? Not the average family. Mom and Dad working at the crumbs left here in this rich country ( but you're friends are working at that in a furious pace as everything is put upon the auction block for the quick unsustainable buck...) while an already well heeled bastard makes a few more million he will never need as he ships his factory to China. Screw you, you empty

souled buffoon.

Socialism nationalizes natural resources, not businesses. That's the theory at least.

It's like the theory of "free markets". It's just an idea that's never really worked out quite the way they say.

Nokia is a company that exists under socialism. So are Canadian companies, like The Tragically Hip. Ikea is from Sweden.

Anarchism can also create businesses. The Mondragon co-ops are an example of a kind of anarchistic business.

Cooperative ownership under capitalism also works. Sunkist is a good example of a co-op.

Paternailistic capitalism, like that espoused by Ford, also can work. Costco is an example of a company that's Fordist. They pay well, work with unions, and still have a 20:1 p/e ratio.

Likewise, every decade or so, corporations screw up royally, and get a major bailout, paid for by the taxpayers. Enron at the turn of the millenium, the banks in the late 80s, Chrysler in the early 80s. Next is going to be the "Edision" schools -- corporatization of public education -- they'll probably fail. There is no profit margin in public education.

The idea that only the laissez faire version of capitalism always wins, and other forms always lose, is not reality.

In fact, I can't name that many ardently laissez faire companies that are well known. Cirrus Logic comes to mind. I think that porn company Extreme Associates are GOPs -- anal sex torture is freedom, I guess. Arnold Schwartzenegger might be one, but he works for the government, and that should disqualify him.

Well, for one thing a bit of humanity.

Someone has to make up for you and your like minded ilk.

Sinister corporations. The ones you like, the ones that offer high returns for their share holders who live by indirect income such as dividends. The ones with CEOs who are fired when they develop a conscience. Milking machines for the elite. And since they are paper entities, they are never really punished for their many crimes.

"like The Tragically Hip"

Well if that isn't reason enough to loathe socialism, what is?

Fuck socialism. It's beneath the dignity of human beings to be ruled by an unaccountable commitee of do-gooders and 5-year-planners.

It's that simple.

And that "every 10 years there's a bailout" line is straight from the Marx playbook.

"Well if that isn't reason enough to loathe socialism, what is? "

Alanis Morissette.

But, we're guilty of Britney Spears.

Isn't that reason enough for popular revolt?

If there was one reason for me to take up arms and revolt it might be the wealth of awful music America has produced. Not all of it but an awful lot.

"Labor is morally entitled to all the wealth it creates. "

I'll get to the rest later and thanks for responding but this statement is ridiculous.

It leaves out the entire part of the equation which is the risk involved in creating a situation for labor to be employed in the first place, not to mention the design of a system of utilizing the labor.

If a worker in a factory creates a table worth 0, their share should be and is whatever their salary or wages are. That fiqure IS their share of the profits. In fact it's paramount to profits as profits don't even come into existence until their wages are meted out.

Their is simply no sound reasoning for justifying a laborer sharing even remotely equaly in profits along with an owner in any system where the owner remains motivated to stay in business and becoming more successful. Face it, it's simply not human nature to be satisfied with a business reaching stasis and simply existing. Plus, you continually devalue the efforts of the owner in doing all the work (non labor to you it seems) and sustaining all the risk neccessary to keeping a business alive and prosperous. Evidently this is easy work to you.

Anyway, that's all for now.

Talk to you soon.

The link to shitpiles comments is very appropriate...

"Fresca simply wrong"

...kinda sums it up, don't ya think?

Many owners do no work at all. They're called "stockholders", and just own without working.

Many presidents and CEOs don't risk much. They raise capital through partnerships, venture capital, and later, selling stocks. This is a way to spread risk out over more owners.

Workers, in contrast, risk a lot more. They may risk bodily injury. On a weekly basis, they risk not being paid, because they provide their labor BEFORE getting paid... meanwhile, they pay rent on property BEFORE it's used. A typical worker is giving the owners a big fat 00 to 00 credit float.

This isn't to deny that owners often do the work too, but by definition, they are "being their own boss." The owner pays the owner, and deducts the money as a business expense.

Owner/workers are entitled to the value they provide the company.

I specifically stated that there's a "moral" entitlement. This is above and beyond what's negotiated in a contract.

It goes back to the Protestant work ethic: that work should be rewarded by God. If two people work equally hard, doing valuable work, they are morally entitled to the same pay. Moreover, anyone working "the usual" amount most people work is entitled to make enough to live "a decent life."

This flies in the fact of neoclassical economics, that says that people should get paid whatever their work contract stipulates. What would they say to a worker in a small company town, who has no money to get out? They face the situation of "work for peanuts" or "starve".

This idea that work is entitled only to what's in the contract, is inhumane. It destroys the idea of working for someone else, because it devalues paid work. In places where people are underpaid consistently, unemployment and poverty flourish, because there's no money around to create new jobs.

That's funny. I thought fresca would have a comment to make about my posts. Guess not.

:-)

"It's pretty simple really. Some of the people are smart, motivated, determined to succeed, and very hard working. They generally make a success of their lives and accumulate income, property, and eventually that can turn into wealth. They want security and a comfortable lifestyle for themselves and their family. "





Officials get taste of how lower income live

The "Walk a Mile" project challenges community leaders to live on a food stamp budget for a month

12/08/03

BILL GRAVES

Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz didn't make it. Neither did state Rep. Steve March, D-Portland, nor Rep. Patti Smith, R-Corbett, nor Gresham Police Chief Carla Piluso.

They all concluded that it was impossible to live a month on food stamps without dramatically restricting their diets and lives.

They and four other public officials volunteered to live on a food-stamp budget in November for the Multnomah County Walk a Mile project, part of a national education program that puts policymakers face-to-face with low-income people.

"I did try," said Cruz, who was allotted a week to feed herself and her husband. "You have to make all of your food. You have to bring your lunch. You can't get your latte. It's really hard."

The Walk a Mile project, coordinated by the Commission on Children, Families & Community of Multnomah County, matched each public official with a low-income person. The pairs met for meals, attended events in each other's lives and talked weekly by telephone or e-mail. They will gather to swap stories in a closing ceremony at 5:30 p.m. today in the Multnomah Building in Southeast Portland.

Public officials and their low-income partners said the project gave them insights about each other. Policymakers said their matches were hard-working, bright, committed parents who defied stereotypes.

"The safety nets that are provided are minimal," said March, 57, matched with Crystal, a 27-year-old single Portland mother who asked to keep her last name private. "The amount of money available for food, for housing, are probably barely adequate to get by, and maybe not even that. . . . Sometimes we are asking almost the impossible on the part of some folks."

Low-income participants said they felt empowered by capturing the ears of local leaders.

"It makes things seem more possible," Crystal said.

Smith asked her match, Linda Ridings, 40, of Portland, to testify on health care later this year before a legislative committee.

"She even asked if she could help me move," Ridings said.

Shadowing a single mom Piluso, 48, was matched with Cristina Diaz, 22, a single Gresham mother of three children, who recently landed a job with an energy assistance program that pays about ,000 a month.

Piluso recalled meeting Diaz one evening after the young mother had spent the day taking her infant for ear treatment to OHSU Hospital in Portland. Diaz, who has no car, awoke at 5 a.m. to take the MAX train and buses to the university. She stayed all day at the hospital and then made the long trek back.

"She was exhausted," Piluso said. "She didn't even complain. We complain about somebody cutting us off in the traffic."

Piluso, also a single mom, and her 11-year-old daughter, Kate, made an earnest attempt to live on their food stamp budget. They ate dinners of grilled cheese sandwiches, baked potatoes, soup and chicken before they succumbed to eating some meals out, partly because the police chief's busy schedule demanded it.

Fortunately, Piluso said, her sister hosted their Thanksgiving meal, more food than a month's worth of food stamps would buy.

"We talked about (living on food stamps) at Thanksgiving and how thankful we were," she said.

After some dinners of grilled cheese sandwiches and of eggs and toast, March gave up trying to live on his food stamp rations.

That's all right, said Natasha Grossman, founder and director of the 10-year-old Walk a Mile project, based at the University of Washington's Northwest Institute for Children and Families.

"The goal is not to punish them," she said. "It is really for them to see how hard it is and in many cases impossible, which is why people on food stamps have to go to food banks at the end of the month."

Walk a Mile has made about 2,000 matches in 31 states during the past decade, including more than 100 this year. In Oregon, agencies also sponsored Walk a Mile projects this year in Clackamas and Lane counties.

Working for change March said he wants to explore whether the Legislature can do something to prevent abrupt losses in federal food stamps after recipients find work. He became concerned, he said, after seeing Crystal recently lose her food stamps immediately after she landed a job organizing parent leaders for the nonprofit Portland Schools Alliance.

Smith wants to see whether there's a way to help Ridings get help with prescription drugs. Ridings gets ,016 a month in Social Security disability assistance because she suffers from chronic migraine headaches and fatigue after a bout with spinal meningitis. But that amount is a month too much to qualify for help covering more than ,000 a month in prescription drugs.

Policymakers often want to address issues that directly affect their matches in the Walk a Mile project, Grossman said.

"We wanted to put a human face on the issues," she said, "and I think that is what this project does."

Bill Graves: 503-221-8549; billgraves@news.oregonian.com

__________________________________________________________

CORPORATE ? WORKER'S NOT GETTING PAID FOR THEIR TIME: The NYT reports, "illegal doctoring of hourly employees' time records is far more prevalent than most Americans believe." There are "a growing number of lawsuits and settlements against a wide range of businesses" who "shave time" from their workers to improve their bottom line. More than a dozen Wal-Mart employees have reported "managers had altered time records to shortchange employees." Experts say that "many managers, whether at discount stores or fast-food restaurants, fear losing their jobs if they fail to keep costs down." Another factor: "An increasing part of [manager's] compensation comes in bonuses based on minimizing costs or maximizing profits." Many employees, including those at Wal-Mart, "receive no paper time records, making it hard to challenge management when their paychecks are inexplicably low."

_________________________________________________________



BORN ON THIRD BASE:

The Sources of Wealth of the 1996 Forbes 400

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Each year, Forbes Magazine releases its round-up of the four hundred wealthiest individuals and families in the United States. The list usually captures people's interest and leads to accolades for the prowess of U.S. entrepreneurs. Forbes usually indicates which of the four-hundred are "bootstrappers" --individuals who started with nothing yet rose to the heights of our wealthiest individuals.

But Forbes' analysis leaves many questions unanswered. Researchers at United for a Fair Economy were curious about where these individuals started in life. How many grew up in families with no substantial savings or wealth? How many inherited wealth or companies --and grew them into greater fortunes? And how many simply inherited their way onto the Forbes 400?

Baseball and making money are truly America's favorite pastimes --and each year the Forbes list coincides with the post-season of America's great game. But how many of our wealthiest citizens actually started life in the batter's box and faced the pitcher? And how many started life on first, second or third base? How many were born crossing home plate and inherited their way directly onto the Forbes 400 list?

"Born on Third Base" takes another look at Forbes' celebrated list of "bootstrappers." Through extensive research, we examined the starting place of the four hundred individuals and one hundred families that Forbes highlights.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

We examined both 1995 and recently released information about the 1996 Forbes list. The average of 1995 and 1996 results indicate that:

30.1% Started in the Batters Box -- includes individuals and families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees.



13.9% Born on First Base -- includes individuals whose biographies showed signs of a wealthy or upper class background, but did not apparently have assets of more than million.



5.75% Born on Second Base -- members inherited a small company or wealth worth more than million, but less than million.



6.85% Born on Third Base -- includes people who inherited substantial wealth, in excess of million, but not enough to qualify for membership in the Forbes 400.



43.35% Born on Home Plate -- includes those who inherited sufficient wealth to rank among Forbes 400.



Between 1995 and 1996, the net worth of the Forbes 400 increased from just over 0 billion to just under 3 billion -- a gain in net worth of 18 percent. There was a 38% increase in the number of billionaires.

EXAMPLES

Batters Box H. Ross Perot was son of a horse trader and born into a comfortable but by no means affluent family.

Wayne Huizenga got his start by buying a garbage truck and starting a waste-hauling company. He took over the 19-store Blockbuster video-rental chain and built it into an industry leader.

First Base Bill Gates' parents were comfortable professionals and he went to Harvard University, but quit for better prospects. He got a head start in life, but the success of his venture did not depend on substantial family money or assets.

Forest Mars, Sr. took over a small European candy business from his parents and invented the Milky Way bar.

Second Base Donald Tyson inherited a small company, Tyson Foods, from his father in 1967 but then built it up into a substantial business.

Poultry magnate Frank Perdue inherited his father's egg farm and hatched millions in chickens.

Third Base Kenneth Feld inherited Ringling Brothers Circus in 1982 when it was worth tens of millions but took it to the big top.

Edward Crosby Johnson III inherited Fidelity Investments from his father but was involved in growing it into the "pace car" of the mutual fund industry.

Home Plate J. Paul Getty, Jr. inherited the oil fortune from his father.

David Rockefeller is the great grandson of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller.

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCHERS

Members of the Forbes 400 were placed into five categories based on information from: Forbes Magazine (October 16, 1995); Forbes Magazine (October 14, 1996); Contemporary American Business Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary, Business Week, The Who's Who of America, Entrepreneurs, by Joseph Fucini, Entrepreneurial Megabucks by A. David Silver (1986).

Because accurate information was not available on the precise value of assets previously held by the family of a current Forbes 400 member, the study team took a conservative approach to categorizing the Forbes 400, assigning each member to the lowest category that the data would support. It is likely, then, that the analysis understates the number of Forbes 400 members who belong in the "Home Plate" and "Third Base" categories.

This study was researched by Paul Elwood, independent researcher, Cambridge, MA.; S.M. Miller, Commonwealth Institute, Cambridge, MA. and Marc Bayard, Tara Watson, Charles Collins and Chris Hartman from United for a Fair Economy in Boston, MA.