U.S. Poverty jumps from 14.3% to 15.1% since 2009

[Dr.Who]

and you don't think it had anything to do with the white house..or those in charge all the years before ...somehow she just magicly made evrything fall apart even the systems that built up for years to fall..

there was a blue moon the same month, maybe you should blame the moon for it.

Quite frankly even the most intellectually dishonest that you and I see around here should know that it is a joint effort by politicians.

The housing collapse as just one example was in the making for years and years across several administrations. And it stands to reason that the inevitable collapse would occur just after a boom - that's how bubbles work. You might as well blame the person who created the boom.

 

[steveox]

Its Taxes why you are poor. New York,California,Illnois,Vermont and Massachusetts are the most taxed states in America.Taxes will make you poor. Thats why the Tea Party is formed. They will destroy the DNC as we know it!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Quite frankly even the most intellectually dishonest that you and I see around here should know that it is a joint effort by politicians.

The housing collapse as just one example was in the making for years and years across several administrations. And it stands to reason that the inevitable collapse would occur just after a boom - that's how bubbles work. You might as well blame the person who created the boom.

I would never say it was all on republicans...but it was a republican white house that failed to act, or even do anything at all before it happened...and if anything was pushing for less regulations when more could have found some of the issues..and its not like it was not known...But I would say one party who wanted to strip away all regulations...who did not pay for any major spending or any tax cuts for 8 years and got us into one unneeded war, and screwed up a 2nd ...gets more blame.. and I do believe that fighting 2 wars had a impact on the econ and not a good one...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its Taxes why you are poor. New York,California,Illnois,Vermont and Massachusetts are the most taxed states in America.Taxes will make you poor. Thats why the Tea Party is formed. They will destroy the DNC as we know it!

now you see for that to be a real point, and its not, you have to then actuly show that those states have more poor people then states with lower taxes like texas ( who has lots of poor people)

 

[Dr.Who]

I would never say it was all on republicans...but it was a republican white house that failed to act, or even do anything at all before it happened...and if anything was pushing for less regulations when more could have found some of the issues..and its not like it was not known...But I would say one party who wanted to strip away all regulations...who did not pay for any major spending or any tax cuts for 8 years and got us into one unneeded war, and screwed up a 2nd ...gets more blame.. and I do believe that fighting 2 wars had a impact on the econ and not a good one...

Now that it an intellectually dishonest statement.

Recessions or hard times occur under all administrations and without our ability to predict when. Furthermore the factors that build them occur not only just before they begin but the seeds are also often sewn decades before.

Sure some blame goes to those who were in power when they start, but some goes to the prior admin and some to those who sowed the seeds and to those who failed to undo what those before them did wrong, and some to those who hold the reigns presently, etc.

Additionally, I would add that several of the items you listed above as causing the hard times are exactly opposite the ones I would list as causing hard times - the truth is that government is incapable of knowing all the things that will or will not cause hard times. It is just too complex.

 

[steveox]

If you want shut HOLLYWOOD UP! Then Boycott your local theater by not going to the movies. Thats how you shut them up.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would never say it was all on republicans...but .

You would never say it was all on Republicans ...but

you would make a long laundry list of what you perceive to be Republican faults while completely ignoring any democratic involvement.

 

[steveox]

The more you fill this form out

The Poorer you get

 

[GenSeneca]

I would never say it was all on republicans...but it was a republican white house that failed to act, or even do anything at all before it happened...and if anything was pushing for less regulations when more could have found some of the issues..and its not like it was not known...

To their credit, Republicans were the ones who saw the red flags surrounding the housing market and pushed for regulation reforms while Democrats blocked all attempts to tighten regulation out of fear it would hurt their goal of providing "affordable housing". There is no shortage of actual CSPAN footage that shows this to be true...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

To their credit, Republicans were the ones who saw the red flags surrounding the housing market and pushed for regulation reforms while Democrats blocked all attempts to tighten regulation out of fear it would hurt their goal of providing "affordable housing". There is no shortage of actual CSPAN footage that shows this to be true...

and the same republicans also wanted wall street to do what ever they wanted with no oversight. And the biggest problem was not people getting affordable housing that the goverment wanted ( all governments have wanted both sides) is that lenders and real Estate people where fudging the numbers and lieing to make sure loans went threw. Of course republicans would be against any regulation to actually check any of that...Can't have any regulations for business or it kills jobs.

And no I don't attack the Dems as a party for some of the issues because I think there are a lot of Dems who did in fact push for things to prevent this stuff...that does not mean there are not Dems who are on the payroll of banks and big business and thus don't do there jobs...but for the Republicans its the Rule not the exception.
Also funny how if I say I put most of the blame but not all on Republicans..that gets you mad, but accorn can blame poverty levals on Obama alone and yet you say nothing about that...as if Republicans have no part in that. ( ok so they play a big part but eah)

 

[BigRob]

And yet, you're still convinced that more poor and lower middle class people should pay taxes, so that the wealthy 1% gets to keep their historical low tax rates!

This, just in case you haven't made the connection in your impatience to blame Obama again for this increase in poverty rate, clearly demonstrate that the "redistribution of wealth" the GOP thinks is so bad, because it would bring more money to the poor and lower middle class instead of the wealthy, is happening. . .but in the direction of the POOR to the WEALTHY!

And. . .where the "trend" of increase in poverty level since 2009 (which you obviously want to blame on Obama!) is real. . .that trend has been present for many years. . .UNDER BUSH. . .at a time when the economy was supposed to have been "great!" and where the wealthy were enjoying even more tax breaks!

Here is the trend since 1993. . .under Clinton (poverty went down from a high of 15.2% to a low of 11.3 %), and under Bush (poverty went up from a low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004 and 14.3% in 2008). And, obviously, since those "Bush tax cuts" are still in effect, and we are still living with the aftermath of Bush/Cheney's policies AND a worldwide economic downturn, the trend has continued to reach 15.1% this year

The underlying question here is of course how poverty is defined, and if that definition equates to actual poverty.

This from Wikipedia:

Some critics assert that the official U.S. poverty definition is inconsistent with how it is defined by its own citizens and the rest of the world, because the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs. According to a 2011 paper by poverty expert Robert Rector, of the 43.6 million Americans deemed to be below the poverty level by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2009, the majority had adequate shelter, food, clothing and medical care. In addition, the paper stated that those assessed to be below the poverty line in 2011 have a much higher quality of living than those who were identified by the census 40 years ago as being in poverty.

Along the same lines, it seems that welfare, food stamps etc, are not counted towards one income when studying "poverty" in the United States. Certainly there are some people that are hurting...but a simple statistic that "poverty increased" doesn't mean much of anything without establishing the parameters for the study in my view.

 

[Openmind]

The underlying question here is of course how poverty is defined, and if that definition equates to actual poverty.

This from Wikipedia:


Along the same lines, it seems that welfare, food stamps etc, are not counted towards one income when studying "poverty" in the United States. Certainly there are some people that are hurting...but a simple statistic that "poverty increased" doesn't mean much of anything without establishing the parameters for the study in my view.

And they are actually working as we speak at redefining the parameter and definition of poverty!

But, if you expect that "poverty in America" should be equivalent to poverty in Africa or India. . .you will have a lot of room to criticize and believe that these 15 % of Americans do live very well indeed!

Everything is relative! To me, having to beg for food stamps to feed my kids would have been abject poverty! To some, having a roof (even if it is leaking) on a single wide with "three bedrooms" to house 8 people may seem "luxury, not deserving of any assistance!"

You just came back from Europe, so I hope you realize that poverty and wealth are defined very differently there! Europe doesn't define "wealth" in square feet of living space, or in how many Mercedes or Lexus are parked in the 3 car garages, or in "stainless steel monster fridges!"

Wealth there is a lot less "ostentacious," and is more generally defined with how many weeks of vacations one can spend in a different country, or renting a small cottage in the South of France for vacations, the number of times one can eat in a QUALITY restaurant, the security of not being afraid to lose one's job from one day to the next, to not face bankcrupcy if one is struck with a catastrophic illness, and to be able to work a 32 hours week, and still be comfortable.

Did you go to Venice? If you did, I wonder if you were like many "ugly Americans" who focused more on the "delapidated building with their feet in dirty water" then on the beauty and the marvel of the architecture that has resisted hundreds of years attacks from the sea, and survives like old wine, the walls covered in dust and fading paint, but the beauty untouched by the years.

Most Americans would consider those "palazio" to be not much better than ghettos. . .and yet, anyone of those palazio is worth over $2 millions, and are filled with art work and beautiful marble and stone staircases, fireplaces, woodwork that are the envy of artists all over the world.

Someone here tried to "define" poverty as measurable by the amount of square feet of living space one disposes of!

How ridiculous. . .In that case, would a 40 year old, double wide trailer house that is worth at most $20,000 be a better indication that its inhabitants live in "comfort and wealth" and do not need assistance because the 5 people living there have in excess of 800 sf, while the 400 sf penthouse studio in Manhattan, renting for $3000 per month would be the sign of poverty for its tenant?


You are correct, poverty is difficult to define. . . but it is very easy to determine once you see it with your heart and your eyes, rather than closing your eyes to it and pretending that it is a "life style choice!"

 

[BigRob]

And they are actually working as we speak at redefining the parameter and definition of poverty!

But, if you expect that "poverty in America" should be equivalent to poverty in Africa or India. . .you will have a lot of room to criticize and believe that these 15 % of Americans do live very well indeed!

Everything is relative! To me, having to beg for food stamps to feed my kids would have been abject poverty! To some, having a roof (even if it is leaking) on a single wide with "three bedrooms" to house 8 people may seem "luxury, not deserving of any assistance!"

Poverty is indeed relative, but we currently define poverty in either absolute or relative terms. I am pretty sure the Census Bureau measures poverty in absolute terms however.

You just came back from Europe, so I hope you realize that poverty and wealth are defined very differently there! Europe doesn't define "wealth" in square feet of living space, or in how many Mercedes or Lexus are parked in the 3 car garages, or in "stainless steel monster fridges!"

Wealth there is a lot less "ostentacious," and is more generally defined with how many weeks of vacations one can spend in a different country, or renting a small cottage in the South of France for vacations, the number of times one can eat in a QUALITY restaurant, the security of not being afraid to lose one's job from one day to the next, to not face bankcrupcy if one is struck with a catastrophic illness, and to be able to work a 32 hours week, and still be comfortable.

I can agree that priorities are different in Europe for the most part.

Did you go to Venice? If you did, I wonder if you were like many "ugly Americans" who focused more on the "delapidated building with their feet in dirty water" then on the beauty and the marvel of the architecture that has resisted hundreds of years attacks from the sea, and survives like old wine, the walls covered in dust and fading paint, but the beauty untouched by the years.

Most Americans would consider those "palazio" to be not much better than ghettos. . .and yet, anyone of those palazio is worth over $2 millions, and are filled with art work and beautiful marble and stone staircases, fireplaces, woodwork that are the envy of artists all over the world.

I was in Venice actually, and I can agree with what you say...but the underlying point again is that poverty is relative, so why do we try to measure it in absolutes?

Someone here tried to "define" poverty as measurable by the amount of square feet of living space one disposes of!

How ridiculous. . .In that case, would a 40 year old, double wide trailer house that is worth at most $20,000 be a better indication that its inhabitants live in "comfort and wealth" and do not need assistance because the 5 people living there have in excess of 800 sf, while the 400 sf penthouse studio in Manhattan, renting for $3000 per month would be the sign of poverty for its tenant?


You are correct, poverty is difficult to define. . . but it is very easy to determine once you see it with your heart and your eyes, rather than closing your eyes to it and pretending that it is a "life style choice!"

I doubt anyone really wants to live in "poverty", but that hardly means people are entitled to the lifestyle they want either.

 

[Dr.Who]

And they are actually working as we speak at redefining the parameter and definition of poverty!

President Obama is indeed trying to redefine poverty as we speak.

If he gets his way it will be relative but in a crazy relative way:

"By defining poverty so broadly, we drain resources that instead could be focused on those who truly are in dire straits. And we spend billions that could be cut from the budget instead.

Because we overdefine and oversubsidize “poverty,” the Census Bureau reports that we have 43 million poor people. To help them, we spend over $900 billion a year in federal and state dollars. Do the math. We spend more than $20,000 apiece for each person deemed poor. For a family of four, that’s $80,000. And it’s on top of what they may earn for themselves.

We spend it through over 70 means-tested programs that give cash, food, housing, medical care, and more. As the Census Bureau explains, “The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).”


[] “Most of the persons whom the government defines as ‘in poverty’ are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term.”

Because we define poverty in overly broad terms, the cost to taxpayers is increased and we lose focus on those who need or deserve help the most."

http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook...on-stimulus-spendingcuts/2011/07/19/id/404120


So what is it that Obama wants to do: He wants to change the definition of poverty so that the level of income changes automatically as the standard of living goes up. The poor might be better off tomorrow but if their neihbor is better off too then even more people would be included in the rolls of the poor. Why it is conceiveable that the poor could all be living in luxurious penthouse apartments but if other people were all living in larger or better penthouse apartments they would still be poor. Poverty could NEVER end and would always increase. The spending on an ever growing group of people would always increase while more money would be diverted away from those with true needs.

The present and proposed plans to address poverty by using too broad a definition of poverty cheats those who are really in need.

 

[Dr.Who]

Poverty should not be relative and should be based on absolute parameters like "can the person provide for his basic needs."

Why would we take money from our own children's care to give food to a person who can afford food?

Why would we give money to a parent who can provide food to his child when it means giving less to the one who cannot?

Any person who can provide for his families basic needs should not be given welfare. He may very well be given other assistance but welfare should be reserved for those who need it so as not cheat those who need it.