America: The land of poverty

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,806
The census bureau figures that came out Tuesday, showing the largest number of Americans living in poverty since records began in 1959, are a damning indictment of American capitalism and the entire political system.

In 2010 there were 46.2 million people—almost one out of every six residents—living below the official poverty line, including 16.4 million children. Of these nearly half, or 20 million, were described as living in deep poverty, subsisting on less than half the income the US government says is needed for basic food, shelter, clothing and utilities.

As it is the government’s poverty threshold—about $22,000 for a family of four and $11,000 for a single person under 65—is insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. A more accurate measure would be twice the official poverty line, or about $44,000 for a family of four. More than 100 million Americans—one in three—are below this threshold.

The main factor behind the growth of poverty is the jobs crisis, which has only gotten worse since 2010, the year after the recession supposedly ended. Tens of millions of workers are jobless or forced to work part-time, low-wage jobs that are insufficient to keep them out of poverty.

The young generation is being hardest hit. Median income for ages 15-24 fell 9 percent last year. For those 25-34, nearly 6 million doubled up in households with parents and friends to save money, up 25 percent from before the recession. Of these, the poverty rate was at 8.4 percent; but the rate would have risen to 45.3 percent if their parents' incomes were not taken into account, according to an analysis of the census report by Bloomberg Businessweek.

The explosion of poverty over the last three years—along with home foreclosures, homelessness, hunger and the growing number of uninsured—takes place alongside the accumulation of fantastic levels of wealth by the financial aristocracy that controls the economy and political system.

This is the culmination of a three-decade long process, in which the ruling class, under both Democrats and Republicans, carried out a conscious policy of transferring an ever greater portion of society’s wealth into the hands of the corporate and financial elite. In the name of the free market, they slashed taxes on the corporations and the rich, deregulated industry and the banks and backed a corporate offensive against the jobs and living standards of the working class.

more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pers-s15.shtml

Comrade Stalin
 
Werbung:
If anything its a damning indictment of liberalism's (socialism) influence over the past 50 years.


That's the problem! We didn't get any "socialist" safety net to help us through tough times like the ones we are facing since 2007. . .because of Bush's "tax break for the wealthy," his "elective wars and spending on these," and his "take away regulations from Wall Street, Banks and big business."

Europe is not doing that great. . .but they are doing as well (or better) than we are. . .but the people of Europe are doing better. . .BECAUSE THEY have that strong safety net, that can now be cut a little to meet their budget needs.

We don't really have any "safety nets" to cut, without throwing even more people in poverty.

If socialism was so bad, how come it took Europe 50 years to fall as low economically as the US?
 
The census bureau figures that came out Tuesday, showing the largest number of Americans living in poverty since records began in 1959, are a damning indictment of American capitalism and the entire political system.

In 2010 there were 46.2 million people—almost one out of every six residents—living below the official poverty line, including 16.4 million children. Of these nearly half, or 20 million, were described as living in deep poverty, subsisting on less than half the income the US government says is needed for basic food, shelter, clothing and utilities.

As it is the government’s poverty threshold—about $22,000 for a family of four and $11,000 for a single person under 65—is insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. A more accurate measure would be twice the official poverty line, or about $44,000 for a family of four. More than 100 million Americans—one in three—are below this threshold.

The main factor behind the growth of poverty is the jobs crisis, which has only gotten worse since 2010, the year after the recession supposedly ended. Tens of millions of workers are jobless or forced to work part-time, low-wage jobs that are insufficient to keep them out of poverty.

The young generation is being hardest hit. Median income for ages 15-24 fell 9 percent last year. For those 25-34, nearly 6 million doubled up in households with parents and friends to save money, up 25 percent from before the recession. Of these, the poverty rate was at 8.4 percent; but the rate would have risen to 45.3 percent if their parents' incomes were not taken into account, according to an analysis of the census report by Bloomberg Businessweek.

The explosion of poverty over the last three years—along with home foreclosures, homelessness, hunger and the growing number of uninsured—takes place alongside the accumulation of fantastic levels of wealth by the financial aristocracy that controls the economy and political system.

This is the culmination of a three-decade long process, in which the ruling class, under both Democrats and Republicans, carried out a conscious policy of transferring an ever greater portion of society’s wealth into the hands of the corporate and financial elite. In the name of the free market, they slashed taxes on the corporations and the rich, deregulated industry and the banks and backed a corporate offensive against the jobs and living standards of the working class.

more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pers-s15.shtml

Comrade Stalin

The last three years were just the continued trend of the last 8 years. . .

File:US poverty rate timeline.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif -
 
We didn't get any "socialist" safety net to help us through tough times...
Since you clearly don't believe that welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, and unemployment payments don't count as a "safety net", then what, exactly, do you think it is that we should have?
 
Since you clearly don't believe that welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, and unemployment payments don't count as a "safety net", then what, exactly, do you think it is that we should have?


Medicare, medicaid, social security and unemployment ARE PART of a safety net. . .the minimum part for a developped country.

And it is clear that there is a definite attack on all of those by the GOP and the tea party today.

There seems to be a weird conception by some people that expenditure on those (MINIMAL) safety nets is just money wasted, just money thrown down the toilet, while money given in tax break to the very wealthy, or CORPORATE welfare are "good for the economy."

Well, this is so wrong, it borders on ridiculous. The "job creators" do not create jobs (as we have seen in the last 5 years, in spite of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) unless there is a STRONG demand for more products. And the DEMAND doesn't come from 2% of the population. . .it comes from 100% of the population, including people whose spending ability comes in part from food stamps, unemployment, disability checks, and social security.

This is such a huge ideological gap, that I don't think we can meet on this. But it is totally illogical to believe that a "job creator" will hire 2000 people to build widgets that will remain on the shelves because so few people will be able to purchase them.
 
Medicare, medicaid, social security and unemployment ARE PART of a safety net. . .the minimum part for a developped country.
Your statement was that we didn't have any safety net, now you admit that we have a "minimal" safety net, but my question, which you haven't answered, still applies:

What, exactly, do you believe should be available before you would consider us to have a "strong" safety net?
 
Your statement was that we didn't have any safety net, now you admit that we have a "minimal" safety net, but my question, which you haven't answered, still applies:

What, exactly, do you believe should be available before you would consider us to have a "strong" safety net?

My statement was that we didn't get any "socialist" safety net. . .not ANY safety net!

And my concern is that the WEAK safety net we currently have is facing a strong attack by the GOP and the tea party to basically be eradicated.

I believe that having to get special Congressional approval to extend unemployment, eventhough there is no way for unemployed people to find jobs is ridiculous! Most other developped countries do have extended unemployment benefits. . .and continued healthcare for the unemployed, so that people who fall out of a job do not have to face bankrupcy and homelessness. Labor laws are also MUCH stronger in other developped countries, preventing corporations from "firing at will" with very litte (2 weeks) or NO notice for no fault of the employee. . .but to increase their stock value.

And still. . .those other developped countries compete EXTREMELY successfully in the business sector, and (Germany for example) is far ahead of us in this competition. . .in spite of the safety net, in spite of strong labor laws, and in spite of universal (and very affordable) health care. . .or maybe BECAUSE of those factors.

Children are going to school hungry, sick sometimes, because they don't have health care. Our education system is in distress and is falling far behind other developped countries.

That canned propaganda about "jeopardizing our children's future" because of our national debt should be revised and made true by stating that we are jeopardizing our children's future because of the poor level of education, the poor and expensive access to higher education, the minimum access to health care we give our children if they are unlucky enough to be born in the lower middle class or poverty, and the continued war waged against poor women who need access to early term abortion to limit the number of poor children born in this country.

And . . .when those poor children are born, unwanted but alive, they have to suffer through the complete indifference of those "well meaning" pro-lifers, who don't give a damn about them, as soon as they leave their mother's womb! And they grow up to live in poverty, like their parents, they join gangs, they get thrown in jails, or . . .if they are lucky, if they have SOME guidance, they join our "MONSTER" military . . .and "die for their country" for a minimum wage job. . .with the hope that, maybe, just maybe, if they make it alive through Iraq, and Afghanistan, they MAY have the option to get an education . . .at last! And yet, it is that huge military complex. . .that "let's go save the world" that keeps this country from taking care of their OWN children!

This is sick!

I realize you will not agree with any of these points. . .and I don't care. I KNOW that these are valid points, and I am not on a partisan kick. I am on a human kick. . .I can't stand the stupidity of people who are themselves wavering at the edge of poverty, who have NO glowing future ahead because of the redistribution of wealth that has continued for the last 10 years from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, and yet follow "party line" talk to "protect" the 2% of elite in this country.

Stupid is as stupid does.
 
And my concern is that the WEAK safety net we currently have is facing a strong attack by the GOP and the tea party to basically be eradicated.

So... to have a "strong" safety net we would need how many of the following?

  • A right to free healthcare
  • A right to free dental care
  • A right to free education
  • A right to free housing
  • A right to free childcare
  • A right to free food
  • A right to rest and leisure
  • A right to work (the right to employment)
  • A right to earn a minimal "living" wage
  • A right to income in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work
  • Unionization of the workers in all business and industry
  • Heavy taxes on wealthy corporations
  • Heavy taxes on Capital Gains
  • Heavy taxes on the wealthy

If there is something you think we need that I haven't mentioned, then please add it...
 
That's the problem! We didn't get any "socialist" safety net to help us through tough times like the ones we are facing since 2007. . .because of Bush's "tax break for the wealthy," his "elective wars and spending on these," and his "take away regulations from Wall Street, Banks and big business."

Europe is not doing that great. . .but they are doing as well (or better) than we are. . .but the people of Europe are doing better. . .BECAUSE THEY have that strong safety net, that can now be cut a little to meet their budget needs.

We don't really have any "safety nets" to cut, without throwing even more people in poverty.

If socialism was so bad, how come it took Europe 50 years to fall as low economically as the US?



We'll see about that. All have been paring back and those who are now bankrupt will be seeing massive rollbacks.

I think those in the third world would LOVE to live in poverty (as defined for these purposes) here. My stepmother qualifies despite a very impressive net worth.
 
So... to have a "strong" safety net we would need how many of the following?

  • A right to free healthcare

    Not free. . .just easily available at an affordable price. . .which private health care for profit industry with no competition from non-profit does NOT offer.
  • A right to free dental care
    Same as above, except that free dental care should be offered in teaching colleges
  • A right to free education
    Free education at least to grade 12, affordable higher education for all, not based on "ability to pay," but on "ability to succeed."
  • A right to free housing
    Absolutely not, but access to means tested housing for people with disability and poor people.
  • A right to free childcare
    Not free, but again, means tested, and with some "free" allowance to assist a single mother to secure a new job (for job interview, training, etc)
  • A right to free food
    The current food stamp program is a minimum. A single person receiving $32 per week in food stamps is certainly not "enjoying" as much as he/she can eat!
  • A right to rest and leisure
    Absolutely! Actually, if more people in America were willing (and able through labor laws and reduced expectation of "high income") to work fewer hours and take more vacation, we would ALL be better off for it! Unemployment would go down, and productivity would go up. Studies have demonstrated that.
  • A right to work (the right to employment)
    Labor laws shoudl be fined tuned to allow a balance between the "fire at will" and "right to work." It is insane that employers can fire employees (without due cause, such as theft or total incompetency) from one day to the next, but expect that an employee will give at least 2 weeks notice if he/she chooses to leave. The employment laws in Europe generally call (after an employe has completed 4 weeks "trial period") for a 3 months termination notice from the employer to the employee, and a 6 weeks termination notice from employee to employer. Since it is the law of the land, no one has a problem with this, and it gives excellent stability to employment.. .in addition to the universal health care which follows the employee whereever he goes.
  • A right to earn a minimal "living" wage
    I believe that would be fair. However, it would need to be determined based on areas, as cost of living varies so widely across the States, and even across counties in one State.
  • A right to income in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work
    Yes. . .the alternative would be?. . .sending the elderly or disabled in the back woods of Montana or Death Valley? Or are you for forced euthanasia?
  • Unionization of the workers in all business and industry
    THE RIGHT to unionized in all businesses and industries, not the obligation.
  • Heavy taxes on wealthy corporations
    Fair taxes on wealthy corporations. . .no "tax loop holes" that bring the tax bill to NOTHING. And additional taxes for wealthy corporations who get their income from oversea employment, AND penalty tax for large lay off that are not warranted by NEEDS (and I don't call "need" the desire to increase the stock price!)
  • Heavy taxes on Capital Gains
    Capital gains taxed as regular income. . .no loop holes. Keep a one time exemptions for capital gain for capital gain of up to $500,000 on a ONE TIME sale of a OWNER OCCUPIED home for at least 5 years at the time of the sale (to assist "empy nesters" to prepare for retirement).
  • Heavy taxes on the wealthy

If there is something you think we need that I haven't mentioned, then please add it...

Child benefit . .means tested (common in Europe).
Extended unemployment and assistance with finding a job
 
We'll see about that. All have been paring back and those who are now bankrupt will be seeing massive rollbacks.

I think those in the third world would LOVE to live in poverty (as defined for these purposes) here. My stepmother qualifies despite a very impressive net worth.


Obviously those who are currently facing bankrupcy will see massive cutbacks, and those who are not will also see some cutbacks. . and there is nothing wrong with that, as the safety net they DO have is broad and very healthy. .. it can AFFORD to be pared back!

We can't afford to "pare back" what we don't have. . .there is very little wiggle room in our meager safety net, and ANY cuts (although I recognize that some cuts are necessary) WILL severely and negatively impact our economy. . .by bringing the already poor demand to a stand still!

There is an official "multiplier" of how much $1 in tax break to the wealthy bring in economic stimulus, versus $1 in unemployment benefit or welfare. . .and although I do not have the exact numbers at this time (easy enough to find on the web, though), I can assure you that the positive economic effect of the $1 in unemployment provides A LOT MORE benefit to the general economy (without even talking about the life of the people) than the $1 in tax. . .because poor people, lower middle class people, and unemployed people do not have a choice but to immediately spend that money, thus creating demand, instead of "investing" it in the stock market or leaving it in a bank account!
 
Werbung:
Obviously those who are currently facing bankrupcy will see massive cutbacks, and those who are not will also see some cutbacks. . and there is nothing wrong with that, as the safety net they DO have is broad and very healthy. .. it can AFFORD to be pared back!

We can't afford to "pare back" what we don't have. . .there is very little wiggle room in our meager safety net, and ANY cuts (although I recognize that some cuts are necessary) WILL severely and negatively impact our economy. . .by bringing the already poor demand to a stand still!

There is an official "multiplier" of how much $1 in tax break to the wealthy bring in economic stimulus, versus $1 in unemployment benefit or welfare. . .and although I do not have the exact numbers at this time (easy enough to find on the web, though), I can assure you that the positive economic effect of the $1 in unemployment provides A LOT MORE benefit to the general economy (without even talking about the life of the people) than the $1 in tax. . .because poor people, lower middle class people, and unemployed people do not have a choice but to immediately spend that money, thus creating demand, instead of "investing" it in the stock market or leaving it in a bank account!


OMG you actually buy that multiplier nonsense ?
 
Back
Top