Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 61

Thread: Invisible Poor

  1. #26
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Maybe this will help clear up the confusion about the true distribution of wealth in the USA.

    http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTj9AcwkaKM#t=12

    Admittedly being in the even strictly defined 'Poverty' class in the USA is a damned sight better than living in the equivalent class in Ethiopia. But being a single mother in the USA is no picnic, even without being emplaced in a relatively encouraging socioeconomic environment.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Djoser For This Useful Post:


  3. #27
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    We need to stop bitching & whining about how much people are getting from social programs, and start bitching & wining about the truly ABSURD imbalance in wealth ownership in the USA today.
    Arguably, both of these are actually parts of a larger economic 'circle' ... deficit spending by the gov't ( largely on wars and social programs ), with the deficit financed by the FED printing money out of thin air ( as opposed to increased taxes or increased exports of gov't 'owned' gas, oil, minerals etc. ), with the newly printed money then being used to 'bid up' the price of stocks and bonds ( primarily owned by the 'already' rich ).

    The single most important difference between the 'rich', versus the 'middle class' and the 'poor', is that the 'rich' have a huge share of their personal 'wealth' invested in stocks and bonds, while the 'middle class' have the lion's share of their personal 'wealth' invested in real estate i.e. the family home, and the 'poor' have extremely little personal 'wealth' to invest in anything. As such, the 'rich' have benefitted disproportionately ... and particularly so post 2008's 'crash' ... because the vast majority of the FED's newly printed money needed to finance the gov'ts record levels of deficit spending has flowed toward increasing stock and bond price valuations. That's a straightforward economic fact.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-28-2014 at 05:39 AM.

  4. #28
    Moderator Optimist's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2004
    Location
    House of Aion
    Posts
    8,074
    Thanks
    7,881
    Thanked 5,705 Times in 2,127 Posts
    My Mood
    In Love

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    My point was that the ladies need to know that the media is not telling the painful truth of how often things DON'T "just work out for the best." So many use that magical thinking when deciding to have kids or even to take chances continuing to avoid birth control or hanging on in relationships with dudes they know are no good. Here's the evidence that in hard times things often go very wrong and neither God nor luck will make it magically work out. There are real well meaning women in this country starving alongside their beloved children at a far greater rate than in decades past. We should be aware of the suffering around us.
    “What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.” - ECKHART TOLLE

  5. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Optimist For This Useful Post:


  6. #29
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    There are real well meaning women in this country starving alongside their beloved children at a far greater rate than in decades past. We should be aware of the suffering around us.
    Again I don't want to come off as cold and uncompassionate, but from a factual standpoint any well meaning women and beloved children who are in fact starving in America are doing so because they are not citizens or 'legal' immigrants ... and as such are not eligible for SNAP, WIC, 'free' school breakfasts and lunches, various state run programs like CACFP, etc. And even for those US residents who are not 'legally' eligible for these various gov't run 'free' food programs, there are also a host of privately run 'free' food sources available ... although they may require the recipients to sit through an 'earful' while eating their free dinners.

    from

    (snip)"The truth of the matter is Americans are fat and getting fatter. As late as 1990, not a single U.S. state had an obesity rate above 15%*. In 2010, merely 20 years later, a dozen states have an obesity rate over 30%. And most shockingly, 69.2% of Americans age 20 or over are obese or overweight.

    So that leads to a rather obvious contradiction: How can Americans be both obese and on the verge of starvation?

    The answer is simple: Very few, if any, Americans are literally starving. Instead, a considerable number of Americans live in "food insecure households." And progressive activists like Mr. Berg dishonestly use the word "starvation" to refer to what would happen to these people if there were no food stamps.

    What is a food insecure household? The USDA determines if a household is "food insecure" based on the responses to a survey (PDF, page 3) which asks questions like:

    "We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

    Another example question:

    In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

    Using this method, the USDA determined that 17.9 million households (14.9%) were food insecure in 2011. So, that's how Mr. Berg comes up with the claim that mass starvation would occur if there were no food stamps.

    Of course, this absurd conclusion ignores two very relevant points: First, Americans are very generous people, possibly the most generous in the world. It is very difficult to imagine an America where churches and charities ignore starving people in the streets. Second, just because a household is "food insecure" doesn't mean that it struggles to buy food every day. In fact, households classified as having "very low food security" have trouble buying food a few times per month for 7 months out of the year. In other words, they're eating most of the time.

    Nobody wants to see a person, particularly a child, go hungry -- even for a day. But, to characterize this as potential "mass starvation" is really inconsiderate of the millions of people in the world who are actually starving. Hyperbole only serves to downplay the seriousness of global poverty and starvation in the developing world. (snip)


    Down here way south of the border, there are in fact some REAL starvation situations in neighboring countries. However, even then, the true causes have little to do with actual food shortages. I can't really elaborate due to the politics ban.

  7. #30
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ why is taxing of social welfare benefits 'insane' ... Sweden does it, as to many other western European countries. The obvious effect is that the country can 'claim' that it provides generous social welfare benefits, but in fact a fair percentage of the benefit money is 'clawed back' via taxes for citizens whose incomes are above 'rock bottom'. See http://people.su.se/~kennethn/Taxation LIS.pdf
    You point this out but ignore the fact Sweden has extremely low rates of poverty. They have a high min wage, alot of employment regulation and unions, strong family medical leave laws, and universal healthcare to name a few. Sweden also has a much higher rate of economic mobility (links in my previous post) aka people who start poor but work their way up the ladder to greater success. It is easier to make wise choices when you are educated and empowered. Sweden has a robust economy as well.

    But instead of copying Europe's model we degenerate the poor instead of empowering them.

    The other cause of poverty in this country is corporate welfare. There is nothing like this in Europe. We pay companies to keep wages and benefits low. This is a pdf that goes into great detail how Walmart makes money off of welfare recipients. Both as employees and customers. It also has links to all of the sources.
    This is just one example. Why raise your wages when you get paid not to and then you wont have to pay their health care either? This is not free market forces. These are the types of subsidies we need to stop in this country. The taxpayer is paying for Walmart's work force and their tax bill, which is roughly $4billion a year, in addition to paying for welfare. How in the hell does that make sense?
    People are not poor because they are lazy and stupid. People are poor because they dont have options.

    "Walmart recieves and estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsides. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps and taxpayer funded programs.The study found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayrs between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year"

    http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...Fairness-1.pdf
    Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain


  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vamp For This Useful Post:


  9. #31
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    . Hyperbole only serves to downplay
    I agree with you there so here are some real facts....

    According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.[i] Although food insecurity is harmful to any individual, it can be particularly devastating among children due to their increased vulnerability and the potential for long-term consequences.


    Food Insecurity

    15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012.[ii]
    20% or more of the child population in 37 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2011, according to the most recent data available. New Mexico (30.6%) and the District of Columbia (30.0%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.[iii]
    In 2011, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, and Georgia.[iv]
    In 2011, the top five states with the lowest rate of food insecure children under 18 are North Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Minnesota.[v]

    Emergency Food Assistance

    Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under.[vi]
    Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children. 62 percent of client households with children under the age of 18 reported participating in the National School Lunch Program, but only 14 percent reported having a child participate in a summer feeding program that provides free food when school is out.[vii]
    54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).[viii]
    32 percent of pantries, 42 percent of kitchens, and 18 percent of shelters in the Feeding America network reported "many more children in the summer" being served by their programs.[ix]

    Poverty

    In 2012, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.[x]

    Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs

    In fiscal year 2011, 47 percent of all SNAP households contained children.[xi]
    During the 2012 federal fiscal year, more than 21 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals daily through the National School Lunch Program.[xii] Unfortunately, in 2012 less than 2.5 million children participated daily in the Summer Food Service Program.[xiii]

    http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-...er-facts.aspx#
    Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Vamp For This Useful Post:


  11. #32
    God/dess simone87's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    5,171
    Thanks
    7,361
    Thanked 9,469 Times in 3,228 Posts
    My Mood
    Cheeky

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    i think obesity is stemming from horribly unhealthy processed "fake" food, etc instead of people gorging themselves on healthy food to the point of becoming obese. its cheaper to buy a 1$ hamburger than go to the store and get all the ingredients for a salad and then prepare it when you really have no time to cook ( and often people who aren't taught to cook by their parents won't do it for their children either). the fattiest, unhealthiest,processed food is the cheapest. http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/0...n-amid-plenty/
    also, food stamps are pretty hard to come by in some states unless you are unemployed. i tried to get food stamps with my 3 person household a few years back when my boyfriend was making 8 bucks an hour, and we were told he made far too much to qualify, since they are counting your gross income, not net income. food pantries can be great, but a lot of the times they are only open once a week during work hours, and the one in my town only consisted of canned good, some of them already opened *ew*. i absolutely love WIC, and i think its a great program, but it is hardly enough to survive on for an entire month. its like one carton of eggs, two milks, one bread, and some beans ( and formula for half a month if you aren't breastfeeding)

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to simone87 For This Useful Post:


  13. #33
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    People are not poor because they are lazy and stupid. People are poor because they dont have options.
    I'm actually in complete agreement with you on this issue.

    However, in regard to Walmart, there are obviously multiple viewpoints. An alternative one is available at

    From a purely economic standpoint, the same issue arises as was mentioned in an earlier post. Unskilled US workers are simply unable to provide enough 'added value' via the fruits of their labors to afford the Y dollars required to maintain X standard of living. That leaves two pragmatic choices ... allow the standard of living to fall, or tax and transfer to make up the difference. As you unknowingly point out, there are two ways to do this. The first is the present method, where gov't collects income taxes from higher skill US workers and US companies ( Walmart paid a 32.4% corporate tax rate last year ... and the resulting > 8 billion tax bill financed a whole lot of food stamp benefits ), and gov't effects the transfer via tax credits, SNAP and other social welfare programs etc.

    The other method is to mandate a minimum wage high enough to provide the Y dollars required to maintain X standard of living, and to collect a 'de-facto' tax in the form of higher prices being charged for virtually everything so that US businesses can still satisfy their investors in regard to profit margin. This works ... for a year ... until those higher prices result in Y dollars no longer being adequate to maintain X standard of living anymore.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-28-2014 at 10:07 AM.

  14. #34
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    And in regard to Sweden's supposedly successful social welfare system, the Globe and Mail had this to say about recent events ...


    (snip)"The Swedes are extremely progressive. Underlying their open-hearted immigration policy is a broad humanitarian desire to do good, combined with the belief that the right kind of social policies – education, welfare, job training – can transform newcomers into Swedes in short order. After all, it worked with the Chileans.

    But semi-literate people from the tribal cultures of the Middle East or Africa are not the same as the Western middle-class Chileans who fled Pinochet. The culture clash extends from the importance of religion, the rights of women and the proper way to raise children to the benefits of exercise. (Swedes are fitness nuts.) To put it mildly, assimilation is a challenge.

    The newest Swedes have settled in suburbs that sound like names from the Ikea catalogue: Tensta, Rinkeby, Husby. These suburbs are not slums. They have expansive parks and recreation centres and free Swedish-language classes. The schools get extra subsidies. Welfare benefits are generous. But these neighbourhoods have become welfare traps. The schools are almost entirely segregated. Graduation rates are low (three-quarters of Somali kids drop out of school, according to the Economist) and unemployment rates are high. Central Stockholm is a short ride away by public transit, but it might as well be on Mars.

    The newcomers are vastly better off than they were back home. But their kids don’t care about back home. Here, most of them are stuck at the bottom of the social heap. Some of them are angry, and take it out on society. They stone their own fire fighters and burn their own schools. The authorities are not inclined to be too harsh. “Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm’s police chief told the Swedish newspaper Expressen, during the recent riots.

    As riots go, these were rather small. A few dozen cars were burned. Nobody was shot. Still, they are a sign that something has gone very wrong in Sweden. Yet frank discussions of the country’s immigration problems are virtually taboo. Anyone who brings them up is likely to be labelled as a xenophobic racist. When the immigration minister, Tobias Billström, mildly suggested that “we need to discuss the volume” of immigration, his own party nearly disowned him.

    What accounts for this excruciating excess of political correctness?

    The best explanation I have heard comes from Jonathan Friedman, an American anthropologist who is married to a Swedish woman, and lived in Sweden for several years before moving back to California. He blames a “politics of submission by Swedish elites.” Continued large-scale immigration, he told me in an e-mail, is untenable in a situation of economic decline. But Sweden’s elite “refuses to see what is really happening and instead holds on to absurd ideologies of immigration as enrichment.”

    In other words, such outbreaks are bound to happen. And they are bound to create big cracks in Sweden’s famous tradition of social cohesion. As Swedes redistribute more and more of their wealth to people whose habits are culturally alien, and who are permanently dependent on the state, the immigration consensus is bound to crack.

    We love to envy Sweden. But really, it’s Sweden that should envy us."(snip)

  15. #35
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,948
    Thanks
    2,846
    Thanked 5,526 Times in 3,113 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    "(snip)"The Swedes are extremely progressive. "

    That of course being a euphemism for socialist/Marxist.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to slowpoke For This Useful Post:


  17. #36
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Aboard The Spaceship
    Posts
    4,787
    Thanks
    3,183
    Thanked 10,142 Times in 3,290 Posts
    My Mood
    Breezy

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    This has been discussed over and over again. Here and in Dollar Den. The primary cause of poverty is single motherhood. If you want a 50-1 chance of never being poor there are four things you must do : 1. Graduate high school ; 2. Stay out of jail ; 3. Don't get married before turning 21 and 4. Don't have children out of wedlock. Not doing any of those four things means there is a 98% chance you will NEVER be poor. Doing just one of the four listed doubles your chances of being poor. Doing two gives you a 95-98 % certainty ( depending on the study ) you will be poor for a LIFETIME.
    I grew up poor and in a housing project where I lived for 18 years, and a lot of the people living there (more than half) never fell into any of those categories. Many of them were even college graduates. Many worked full time. However, they were still considered poor and below the poverty line. Most of them were just victims of unforeseen tragedies.

    They lived there for reasons like: their spouses died unexpectedly, they or their spouse were injured, they had a special needs child that took up a lot of resources and time, they were a/an (legal) immigrant, they were continually laid off, they were going through a divorce, they worked full time and it still wasn't enough to make ends meet, they were forced to care for their elderly parents or family, They were seniors who lived alone or married and didn't make enough money (a good 15-20% of my neighborhood was this), they became a victim of domestic abuse and left their spouse, etc etc.



    I also want to add, as someone who did spend almost 2 decades in that environment, IMO, the #1 reason why people continue to live there is for the culture. I've live in the projects obviously, and since that time, I've lived in very wealthy areas, big cities, and the more suburban middleclass areas. And what I can tell you is that there is nowhere like the projects.

    There is a sense of community you will rarely find outside the projects. Block parties, house parties, people sitting on porches or stoops just talking... everyone knows everyone's business and is supportive. And you don't find that in wealthier areas because everyone keeps to themselves. You learn to do free fun things in the projects, and with the upper middle class or wealthy, if you can't pay for whatever it is, you are excluded. Its very hard to go from one environment to the other, and it can be downright uncomfortable.

    Another issue is that moving away from the projects often makes your family feel like you are disowning them. They will be resentful. They will often accuse you of thinking you're better than them because you don't interact with them as much anymore, or asking for money... And you really CAN'T interact with them. Its hard going from having no money and struggling to be able to pay all your bills. You just can't relate to people who live in the projects anymore because you don't have the same struggles and values, which is what happens when you change classes. So I could see how many people who leave the projects become depressed that they have kind of... "lost their family" due to changing classes. It happens. I saw it several times, and I experienced it. Its traumatic. For that reason alone, I cannot judge someone who lives in the projects. As weird as it sounds, its the best fit of lifestyle for many. Poor areas have their own culture and values.
    Last edited by GlamourRouge; 06-28-2014 at 02:22 PM. Reason: added info

  18. #37
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Aboard The Spaceship
    Posts
    4,787
    Thanks
    3,183
    Thanked 10,142 Times in 3,290 Posts
    My Mood
    Breezy

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimist View Post
    As usual, are having the hardest time of all. More than 40 percent of women who head families are now living in poverty. With more than half of poor children living in female-headed families in 2010, the child poverty rate jumped to 22 percent."
    I think that comment is misleading. The issue has nothing to do with the single mother or woman, and more to do with the fact that children primarily live with their mother over their father. So of course there would be more poor women than men. Because, in general, women support children (especially where time is concerned, and we all know time is money) more than men do because that's how nature is set up. Women are just more motherly, if that makes sense.

    Though it CAN, it really has nothing to do with the woman being a single mom. Half of all marriages end in divorce these days. I grew up in the projects and almost every "single mom" that lived there was previously married, and often married to a guy who had a decent job.


    Quote Originally Posted by simone87 View Post
    in this economy, simply graduating highschool, not getting a felony, and not having kids out of wedlock will GUARANTEE ( to 98%) you will never be poor?? im just finding that VERY hard to believe.
    Its not accurate at all. More like: 1.) Never having immediate family die, 2.) Never being a victim of an unforeseen tragedy, 3.) Never being laid off, and 4.) Having 100% healthy, problem-free children with a dad (or second income partner) guaranteed to be around for the rest of your own life. And NO ONE is able to commit to those 4 items, because they are all unexpected when they do happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kellydancer View Post
    There never is a guarantee you won't be poor but there is really a guarantee you will be poor if you do what Eric mentions, such as drop out of high school, have babies out of wedlock etc. There are reasons why this happen and it's a problem. For many it's all they saw growing up.
    Honestly, I've known many, many, many financially successful people who did one or more of those 4 things. lol


    Quote Originally Posted by Vamp View Post
    The reality is that poverty is a much more complex issue for women then these few items. The biggest indicator of poverty is if you are already born into poverty.
    Yes, and as someone who has lived it, its because of culture. They don't want to leave the culture and family they grew up with. And that's entirely their choice. Its a very hard thing to do. Even these days, I still struggle with it.

  19. #38
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 42 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    If having children out of wedlock means laying with the neighborhood thug/drug dealer/recidivist prisoner, then of course that would have a profound effect on a single mother and her child's poverty. Sure, if chicks want to lay with the likes of grand theft auto master Jeremy Meeks, they get what they deserve.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1837659

    When it's an out of wedlock with someone well-to-do, single mothers and her children are not in circumstances of poverty, the children do okay.
    For example, children of Irvine Company Donald Bren's son Donald Bren went to Boston University. Daughter Christine Bren went to NYU.
    Elder Bren said, ""I felt an education at the university level, at the graduate level is perhaps the best gift a parent can give a child."

    Illegitimate son of Karl Malone, Demetress Bell, is doing ok for himself too as a pro football player.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetress_Bell

    Did you know Apple founder Steve Jobs and Oracle Founder Larry Ellison are both illegitimate children? Really, its parental circumstances and values have more affect on poverty, not simply the fact that a child is born out of wedlock.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

    These are not isolated examples.
    Last edited by 1st_samurai; 06-28-2014 at 07:42 PM.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 1st_samurai For This Useful Post:


  21. #39
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Aboard The Spaceship
    Posts
    4,787
    Thanks
    3,183
    Thanked 10,142 Times in 3,290 Posts
    My Mood
    Breezy

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by 1st_samurai View Post
    If having children out of wedlock means laying with the neighborhood thug/drug dealer/recidivist prisoner, then of course that would have a profound effect on a single mother and her child's poverty. Sure, if chicks want to lay with the likes of grand theft auto master Jeremy Meeks, they get what they deserve.
    Honestly... my experience in the projects were that most of the "single moms" WERE in fact, at one time, married. And that IMO is probably because many of them came from cultures with heavily religious backgrounds. So they were, more often than not, pressured to get married unlike the average non-religious middle class person. So in a way, I really don't think marriage has much to do with anything. The dad still owes $$$ for child support regardless if they were married or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1st_samurai View Post
    When it's an out of wedlock with someone well-to-do, single mothers and her children are not in circumstances of poverty, and the children do okay.
    I agree. That's why I think "single moms" or "babies born out of wedlock" is really an irrelevant topic. It has nothing to do with anything. If anything, the focus should be the father's income (the father of the baby), regardless if he married the mother or not. That has nothing at all to do with marriage.




    I'd like to use my mom as an example of how poverty is attributed to unforeseen tragic circumstance. And having been around so many of them, this is the TYPICAL person in poverty:

    * She was a child orphan who grew up in foster care, then married and had 2 kids. Her orphanage put her in a really rural area, and she didn't want to live there anymore, so one day she divorced the husband she met there & came out to California in her latter 20s, in search of a better life with more opportunity.
    * She soon met another man and got married. He died (of a heart or a brain issue I forget which- an UNFORESEEN tragedy) soon after, and she was left all on her own with her 2 children. She was working for like Time Warner or something, so not a bad job (especially for those times since women weren't always in the workplace), but not something that paid a lot of money. She rented a duplex with another single mom on the other side, and often took turns babysitting each other's kids. She lived there until I was 1.
    * She soon met another man (my dad) and she opted NOT to get married due to her last experience even though he brought it up. He had quite a decent amount of money, worked in tech, and owned a bunch of property. They had me, I'm baby#3.
    * I'm still a baby and they decide they don't get along anymore (trust me, they DON'T), and split up. Off and on for awhile. My mom wants to keep sole custody of me so she doesn't go after him for child support. She is worried he will take me away, and would probably succeed because he makes significantly more money.
    * As I starting inching closer to 1 year old, she notices that I'm not responsive when she tries to communicate with me. After a bunch of time & tests, she finds out I'm deaf (and not slow like she thought), so I have to undergo several surgeries. Many of them. They cost 10s of thousands of dollars, even with insurance. She sells her furniture and stuff to try to pay for them. Eventually the surgeries work and I can hear, but still go on to have autoimmune issues and throw up or get sick at babysitters and daycares that they all say they can no longer care for me. She must quit her job to care for me.
    * Just as I enter schooling and my mom has time to get her life back in order, her son (my brother) gets shot and dies. She is very traumatized by this, and I'm not surprised because she made no secret of the fact that he was her favorite child. This affected her the most, the first 2 years after.
    * Then she decides to enroll in school again and finish her degree. She does that, which takes a few years, and then becomes a counselor to foster and problematic children, which actually paid pretty well. She does that for awhile, and then one of them who is very large (and she is a tiny woman), decides to attack her and then she loses all ability to use her left arm. She sues and wins the lawsuit, and the company has to shut down over it. She had to get on disability anyway, so its not like she could get her job back. All the money from her settlement went toward living expenses and extensive physical therapy because if you don't have 2 working arms, no one wants to hire you. Luckily that worked.
    * Then she is in search of work and bounces around a lot, continuously getting part time work or laid off. Not enough money to survive.
    * Then the recession hits and makes it 10x harder, especially for this woman who is now in her 60s.
    * Now she is in her 60s and while all her peers are looking to retire, she obviously is not and has a hard time finding work.

    And that, my friends, is the typical REAL story of someone who lives in the projects. I could literally write another 40 of those out about REAL people. But that's literally what happens, and why people "end up" moving into low-income areas.

  22. #40
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 140 Times in 72 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    This thread is all over the place but I'll bite.

    Sweden also has absurd taxes, and is a very expensive place to live. Norway is worse. Natives in both countries are starting to backlash against the utopian society that only worked when it was homogenous and a lot cheaper.

    I was raised by a single mother, my father was an officer in the military and my mother was the perfect house wife turned full time student after the separation. Regardless of background it is really expensive to raise kids on your own.

    Many younger women seem to be really attracted to failures, not going to explore that much. It seems to be true for many younger women up until whatever age the reality check kicks in then it does a 180. I don't know that much can be done about that except perhaps to raise men better, so they end up being at least responsible douches and dead beats.
    Last edited by invibe; 06-28-2014 at 10:51 PM.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to invibe For This Useful Post:


  24. #41
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    I'm actually in complete agreement with you on this issue.

    However, in regard to Walmart, there are obviously multiple viewpoints. An alternative one is available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...ore-trying-to/

    From a purely economic standpoint, the same issue arises as was mentioned in an earlier post. Unskilled US workers are simply unable to provide enough 'added value' via the fruits of their labors to afford the Y dollars required to maintain X standard of living. That leaves two pragmatic choices ... allow the standard of living to fall, or tax and transfer to make up the difference. As you unknowingly point out, there are two ways to do this. The first is the present method, where gov't collects income taxes from higher skill US workers and US companies ( Walmart paid a 32.4% corporate tax rate last year ... and the resulting > 8 billion tax bill financed a whole lot of food stamp benefits ), and gov't effects the transfer via tax credits, SNAP and other social welfare programs etc.
    They do provide the value to afford a decent standard living. Instead of being fully paid for the value they add, that money goes to the wealthy business owner or the corporation, which just sits on the cash in many cases. American corporations are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash. I'm sure that money could greatly increase the working standards of the workers who helped those corporations earn that money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    The other method is to mandate a minimum wage high enough to provide the Y dollars required to maintain X standard of living, and to collect a 'de-facto' tax in the form of higher prices being charged for virtually everything so that US businesses can still satisfy their investors in regard to profit margin. This works ... for a year ... until those higher prices result in Y dollars no longer being adequate to maintain X standard of living anymore.
    Higher wages doesn't automatically mean higher prices. For example, corporations could increase wages with the more than $1 trillion in cash reserves they're sitting on, without raising prices a cent. Not only would this help the workers, it would help the corporations because consumers would have more money to spend on their products.

  25. #42
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    ^^^ While it's true that some American corporations are sitting on huge amounts of cash, it's also true that the vast majority of said cash is being kept outside the USA so that the corporation can avoid having to pay draconian US corporate tax rates. See Noteworthy examples are Apple, GE, IBM, Microsoft, Pfizer etc., whose effective US corporate tax rates are under 10% ( as opposed to WalMart's ~32% ) Also noteworthy is the fact that these companies are active outsourcers and offshorers ... from Apple's products being manufactured by subcontracted $3 per hour Chinese workers, to IBM's software being written by $30k per year Indian software developers, to Pfizer's prescription meds being manufactured by $4 per hour Mexican workers.

    In terms of the topic of this thread, Apple, GE, IBM, Microsoft, Pfizer etc. are arguably FAR more responsible for contributing to America's growing gap between the 'rich' and the 'poor'. Their stock shares are the 'darlings' of the already 'rich', because their legally avoided US corporate taxes allow more money to be used by those companies to repurchase company stock shares ( thus further increasing stock valuations ). Apple, GE, IBM. Microsoft, Pfizer etc. are also collectively responsible for outright eliminating millions of ( potential ) US jobs over the course of the past 20 years ( as opposed to WalMart who is still creating new US jobs ).

    However, for some reason, US companies who actually create / provide jobs for unskilled US workers receive a whole lot of criticism for 'only' paying $8 an hour ( or whatever ), while other 'nominally' US companies who eliminated US jobs altogether ( or did not create US jobs as their businesses expanded overseas ), in favor of paying foreign workers far less than their former US worker counterparts, draw very little negative attention.

    From a pragmatic viewpoint, WalMart is contributing 32% = ~$8 billion in US tax revenues ( which partially finance social benefit payments ), as well as providing $8 an hour paychecks to over a million unskilled American workers ... with those additional billions almost immediately being spent into the US consumer economy. On the other hand, Apple, GE, IBM, Microsoft, Pfizer et al are only contributing <10% in US tax revenues ( thus providing a far lower level of financial support for social benefit costs versus company revenues / profits ), and are contributing near zero in the form of paychecks for unskilled American workers. The billions they are spending to repurchase stock shares to create capital gains for stockholders, and spending to pay relatively high dividends / interest rates to stock and bond holders, accrue almost exclusively to the 'top 10%' earning Americans who are the predominant owners of those stocks and bonds, and as such are not being spent into the US consumer economy to any great degree.

    Granted that certain consumer spending does result ... i.e. $1 million + condos, $120k Tesla roadsters, $10k Tiffany jewelry, expensive designer clothing, artworks, and other aspects of America's 'luxury' economy ... none of which provides much in the way of jobs for unskilled 'poor' Americans.

    And in terms of the 'corporate welfare' issue raised earlier in this thread, indeed some WalMart workers do receive social benefits. Exactly how much of those social benefits are funded by taxpayers, as opposed to the $8 billion annual corporate tax paid by WalMart, is an open question. However, on the flip side, there is also an open question regarding the percentage of total sales by Apple, GE, Microsoft, Pfizer etc. that are actually financed by US taxpayers. From defaulted / forgiven student loans used to purchase IPads, to grants / tax credits used to purchase GE windmills / solar / light rail, to Pfizer drugs paid for by Medicaid, US taxpayers are directly or indirectly handing money to these companies.


    Sweden also has absurd taxes, and is a very expensive place to live. Norway is worse. Natives in both countries are starting to backlash against the utopian society that only worked when it was homogenous and a lot cheaper.
    Indeed the point about 'homogeneity' is extremely important. The UK and France went through several waves of immigrants from the start of the industrial revolution up to WW2 ... and the US went through several waves of immigrants from the middle of the industrial revolution up to the 1970s ( actually up to the Russian / Bosnian refugees in the 1990's ) ... where the majority of those immigrant groups more or less 'integrated' themselves into their new country's social and economic fabric. Sweden experienced the same regarding immigrant Chileans in the 1990's.

    However, post WW2 in the UK and France, post 1970's in the USA, and post 1990's for Sweden, a growing number of immigrants seemed to be unable to 'integrate' themselves, or chose not to 'integrate' themselves. Instead they perpetuated their own particular cultures and values. I won't elaborate other than to point out that the economic consequences were a relative inability to obtain highly valued skills via higher education, a relative dearth of 'contacts' with the country's employers / business community, a relatively higher level of difficulty getting hired for unskilled jobs, resulting in a more or less 'permanently' high level of unemployment thus more or less 'permanent' dependence on gov't social benefits.

    Sweden is just beginning to face the 'costs' of having a significant segment of their population now being more or less 'permanently' unemployed / unemployable thus 'permanently' dependent on social benefits ... something that the US has increasingly faced for the past 40 years, and something which the UK and France have imcreasingly faced for the past 60 years. It's probably not a coincidence that the UK and France have already flirted with bankruptcy, and that US gov't debt has recently grown to record levels.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-29-2014 at 06:16 AM.

  26. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Great post Djoser. I came across this article a few days ago and thought it summed up the increasing wealth/income disparity nicely. I perceive it as being an economic article, but if it's felt it violates the political ban, please feel free to delete it.

    "The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.
    What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.

    ....I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas—by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call “middle-out” economics. It’s the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines—and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.

    Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around."

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.U7AiqPldWSq

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to jimboe7373 For This Useful Post:


  28. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    From a purely economic standpoint, the same issue arises as was mentioned in an earlier post. Unskilled US workers are simply unable to provide enough 'added value' via the fruits of their labors to afford the Y dollars required to maintain X standard of living. That leaves two pragmatic choices ... allow the standard of living to fall, or tax and transfer to make up the difference.
    Actually there is a third option that can be equally pragmatic and have far better results across the board. Take a portion of money away from social programs, take a portion of money away from corporate welfare, use that money to fund programs to retrain workers for the kind of 'added value' jobs that are currently available.

    Simultaneously, offer tax and other incentives to individuals and companies who create those higher paying added value jobs. If there isn't enough money from the social spending and corporate welfare cuts, then both the gov't and the companies that need these types of workers could operate a Kiva http://www.kiva.org/ type program where the money for an individual's training would be fronted and then paid back. Streamline the training programs to make them as efficient and affordable as possible.

    People and groups wanting to start the type of companies that produce the higher paying 'added value' jobs could likewise use the kiva model for their financing.
    Last edited by jimboe7373; 06-29-2014 at 09:55 AM.

  29. #45
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    ^^^ great idea in theory, but doesn't really work in today's globalized economy. In the final analysis, the marginal 'cost' of a typical software engineer is set by either the $30k annual salary of a qualified software engineer in India, or the $50k annual salary of a qualified Indian software engineer working 12 hours per day under an H-1B visa in the USA. There are already hundreds of thousands of fully qualified typical US software engineers who are unemployed or who are working outside the industry ... because they do not want to move to India, and because they do not want to 'sell their soul' to a US employer who expects them to put their software engineering job requirements above their personal / family life. Training yet more US software engineers would thus be a wasted investment.

    About your Henry Ford example, were it not for the 'US content' exception to US auto import tariffs, and were it not for the billions of US taxpayer dollars spent to subsidize GM and Chrysler, there would be far more fully qualified but unemployed US auto assembly workers than there already are. And, as it is, the vast majority of today's US auto assembly workers ( non-union ) are being paid at rates which make it difficult for them to purchase the nice cars, houses etc. that previous generations of auto assembly workers took as a given. Again, on a global basis, the marginal 'cost' of auto assembly labor is now being set by the $7 per hour paid to Mexican auto assembly workers ( since Mexican assembled vehicles side-step the import tariff as if they were actually assembled in the USA ). And for sure there is no way that a typical Mexican auto assembly worker is going to be able to afford a decent new car. Thus no purpose is to be served by training more qualified US auto assembly workers. Given that unemployed Detroit auto workers already refuse to move to NC etc. to apply for jobs in non-union auto plants, they certainly aren't going to be willing to relocate to Mexico.

    Henry Ford was able to pay high wages because he was able to cash in on the massive productivity advantage his assembly line system provided, versus the hand assembly technology utilized by all of his competitors at the time. However, it didn't take very long for that exclusive productivity advantage to fall by the wayside. Along similar lines, the 'half-life' of any present day competitive advantage is even shorter.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-29-2014 at 08:44 AM.

  30. #46
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ great idea in theory, but doesn't really work in today's globalized economy. In the final analysis, the marginal 'cost' of a typical software engineer is set by either the $30k annual salary of a qualified software engineer in India, or the $50k annual salary of a qualified Indian software engineer working 12 hours per day under an H-1B visa in the USA.
    No it isn't. I work in Information Technology. The going rate for a qualified software engineer is twice that. Staffing firms are desperate to find I.T. professionals with the right skill set. The going rate for consultants is $45 - $50 an hour. It's probably even much higher in Silicon Valley.

  31. #47
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ great idea in theory, but doesn't really work in today's globalized economy. In the final analysis, the marginal 'cost' of a typical software engineer is set by either the $30k annual salary of a qualified software engineer in India, or the $50k annual salary of a qualified Indian software engineer working 12 hours per day under an H-1B visa in the USA.
    You are being way too narrow in your analysis, there are hundreds of types of jobs in dozens and dozens of fields (some of which don't even exist now but will shortly) where these types of opportunities occur. The U.S. is poised better than anyone to reap the maximum benefit from this dynamic, but we've got to invest in research, development and re-training. Nowhere on the planet are there as many start-ups and innovative companies and products being launched as in the US right now, that is all largely just based on the sole initiative of the relatively small number of people doing it. If gov't and some big businesses got behind that trend in a big way we could create an economic revival that would simultaneously raise wages, increase tax income and dramatically improve our economy.

    Henry Ford was able to pay high wages because he was able to cash in on the massive productivity advantage his assembly line system provided, versus the hand assembly technology utilized by all of his competitors at the time. However, it didn't take very long for that exclusive productivity advantage to fall by the wayside. Along similar lines, the 'half-life' of any present day competitive advantage is even shorter.
    Exactly my point- he choose to invest in technology and improved efficiency and then opted to take a part of that savings and pass it along to his workers in the form of a high enough salary where they could buy his product- and many other peoples products as well. What he didn't do was obsess over the quarterly profit by stifling investment and keeping wages as low as possible to eek as much short-term profit out of the business as he could.

  32. #48
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    I work in Information Technology. The going rate for a qualified software engineer is twice that. Staffing firms are desperate to find I.T. professionals with the right skill set. The going rate for consultants is $45 - $50 an hour. It's probably even much higher in Silicon Valley.
    ... which is precisely why I included the word 'typical'. Silicon Valley firms do NOT hire 'typical' software engineers. They seek young people with very specialized skill sets as well as extraordinary talent. And indeed they pay huge money for those specialized skills and talents. However, this does not change the fact that there are far more 'typical' software engineers in the USA than extraordinary ones. See

    (snip)"In the search for a software job, how detrimental will the age-card be? While computer programming as a career has been around for more than 50 years, it is rare to see a software engineer over 40. Here I am at 50 and I’m a rare beast. Clearly, this begs the question, “Why?” ***

    multiple studies bear out that it is, indeed, the case, that older software engineers continue to remain unemployed while businesses claim a shortage of tech workers. In a recent article at Tech Crunch the claim is made that tech companies will only hire youth. The idea being that young means cheap labor, willing to work long hours and able to be more quickly trained.(snip)


    Nowhere on the planet are there as many start-ups and innovative companies and products being launched as in the US right now, that is all largely just based on the sole initiative of the relatively small number of people doing it. If gov't and some big businesses got behind that trend in a big way we could create an economic revival that would simultaneously raise wages, increase tax income and dramatically improve our economy.
    While this aspect certainly skirts politics, I'm actually in complete agreement with you on the fundamentals. Indeed small US companies with a comparative handful of creative and dedicated workers are 'breaking new ground' on a regular basis. However, from an economic standpoint, there seems to be a huge problem when it comes to those companies expanding to the next phase i.e. mass producing a product, adding workers beyond research and development etc. What happens is that the small innovative company is bought out by a much larger company ( making the original founder workers very rich ), with the larger company then taking advantage of global differences in corporate tax rates by moving the company's intellectual assets to Ireland, by hiring lower cost 'typical' software engineers needed for product support work etc. in India, etc.


    What he didn't do was obsess over the quarterly profit by stifling investment and keeping wages as low as possible to eek as much short-term profit out of the business as he could.
    Indeed this was the case back then. However, in today's global economy, any major public company that does NOT cater to the 'rich' stockholders and 'hot money' investors, who are expecting x% return on investment, will find itself in financial difficulty in short order. Apple was one of the first tech age companies to realize that modern age financial fact ... and as such paved the path for others to follow by transferring all of their former Apple II US 'production' jobs to subcontractors in China for later products.

    To actually achieve the Henry Ford ideal of offering large numbers of semi-skilled US jobs at high enough pay rates to allow those semi-skilled US workers to become net consumers and net taxpayers, in addition to the initial design and development work, it is then necessary to actually produce a product in the USA, and to actually support that product from the USA. Unfortunately, from a purely economic standpoint, when producing and supporting a product in the USA involves a 32% versus a <10% corporate tax on profits, involves an additional 7.65% employer SSI tax on every dollar of US payroll, involves paying higher prices for gas fired versus coal fired electricity, and a long list of other areas of higher costs, the 'rich' investors are going to demand that those higher US costs be avoided.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-29-2014 at 01:27 PM.

  33. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    While this aspect certainly skirts politics, I'm actually in complete agreement with you on the fundamentals. Indeed small US companies with a comparative handful of creative and dedicated workers are 'breaking new ground' on a regular basis. However, from an economic standpoint, there seems to be a huge problem when it comes to those companies expanding to the next phase i.e. mass producing a product, adding workers beyond research and development etc. What happens is that the small innovative company is bought out by a much larger company ( making the original founder workers very rich ), with the larger company then taking advantage of global differences in corporate tax rates by moving the company's intellectual assets to Ireland, by hiring lower cost 'typical' software engineers needed for product support work etc. in India, etc.
    Once again, that's a very general analysis. There are a lot of these type of firms that continue to operate and grow right where they were started. In addition many of them also hire and supply locally because it's much more efficient from a logistical standpoint. It is also not just "software" that is being designed, it is entire new technologies and industries- the Indians and others can't supply the "engineers" to do it cheaper because those positions don't even exist. We have the ability to be at the forefront of this movement right now and for the foreseeable future if we seize it. It is happening now on it's own on a smallish scale, if significant resources from the gov't were put into encouraging it the dynamic would expand exponentially.

  34. #50
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Invisible Poor

    ^^^ as I posted above, smallish scale can and does work. However, smallish scale does not provide a lot of US jobs or a lot of US tax revenues. The problem is that the minute these smallish companies bring in major outside investors to finance large scale further growth, the investors start demanding 'acceptable' return on investment. And in today's globalized economy that means offshoring and outsourcing to avoid higher US costs, that means no pay raises and benefit cuts for semi-skilled US workers etc. !!!

    And even when the smallish scale company founders attempt to pursue an independent course ( recent example Whole Foods ), outside investors will begin to steer their money toward newly created competitor companies who are able to underprice the original smallish scale company because they pay their workers less. Thus, arguably, smallish scale US companies are faced with a limited number of choices ... stay small ... sell out ... or try to pursue an independent course while lower cost competitors spring up around them and slowly drive them into bankruptcy.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It's as though I'm invisible
    By mega_bear in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 07:36 AM
  2. MFC- can guys go invisible?
    By LilRedRidinGood in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-03-2012, 02:18 PM
  3. Poor Poor Stripper, Literally - Melonie Help!!
    By cameronlately in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 05:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •