Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 55 to 63 of 65

Thread: Its time for republican to concede a bit

  1. #55

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by pm01 View Post
    I missed it so could someone define "rich" in the context of this discussion? And just a polite question to the person posting that 45 m people in the US live under the poverty line...who is in this population? Are these only wage age Americans or does it include the parents and their six kids? Does it include prisioners and retirees? College students?
    National Poverty Center | University of Michigan
    Poverty Thresholds 2009 - U.S Census Bureau

    It's about 12.5-13% working age Americans (18-64) under the poverty line and about 15-16% of the general population. The thresholds are different when you're retired or before you have a family and depending on the size of your family, that's the way every country measures poverty.

    Well, we do have by far the highest incarceration rates in the world (many more people in the correctional system than China despite our population being much lower), but unemployment stats don't include those 2.3 million imprisoned nor do poverty stats, though do you all really see a huge difference between 45 and 43 million? As for the other 5 million Americans who are either on parole or probation, I assume that they count. Granted, the poverty numbers would certainly look cleaner if we only ran them for white people not dumb enough to have six kids in a broken home. In what world would we not include children in poverty numbers? Impoverished children seems like a bigger, not lesser problem than impoverished adults in many cases. Considering about half the world lives on $2.50 per day, the United States poverty numbers (13-17% living below federal poverty line at any given point in time) don't look so bad. Where we rank very poorly is in relative poverty (how income relates to median income) among other industrialized nations. Currently, the number of Americans in poverty is increasing to record levels with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels which back then led to the national war on poverty. I don't see another of those happening anytime soon.

  2. #56
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Poverty in the United States

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    Parts of this article (those related to the 2010 poverty definition reform) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)
    Impoverished area near 125th Street in Harlem, New York, which was subsequently demolished for new commercial development.


    Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span.[citation needed] Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 43.6 million (14.3%) Americans were living in absolute poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million (13.2%) in 2008.[2]
    The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[3] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[4] There remains some controversy over whether the official poverty threshold over- or understates poverty.
    The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[5] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.
    Relative poverty describes how income relates to the median income, and does not imply that the person is lacking anything. In general the United States has some of the highest relative poverty rates among industrialized countries, reflecting both the high median income and high degree of inequality.[6] In terms of pre-transfer absolute poverty rates, in 2000 the United States ranked tenth among sixteen developed countries, though 2000 was a 'trough' year and subsequently absolute poverty rates have increased.[7] The US does worse in post-transfer absolute poverty rates.[8] According to a 2008 report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, on average, rates of poverty are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas.[9][10] The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is increasing to record levels with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.[11]
    Contents


    [hide]
    [edit] Measures of poverty

    Measures of poverty can be either absolute or relative.
    [edit] Two official measures of poverty


    Percent and number below the poverty threshold.[12]



    The poverty rate for selected age groups. Those under the age of 18 are most likely to fall below


    There are two basic versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds (which are the primary version) and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes?for example, to estimate the number of people in poverty nationwide each year and classify them by type of residence, race, and other social, economic, and demographic characteristics. The Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for administrative purposes?for instance, to determine whether a person or family is eligible for assistance through various federal programs.[13]
    Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.
    The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.
    The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[14]
    The Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan.
    Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.
    In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[14]
    Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.
    [edit] Recent poverty rate and guidelines

    United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures for poverty in 2011[3]Persons in
    Family Unit48 Contiguous States
    and D.C.AlaskaHawaii1$10,890$13,600$12,5402$14,710$18, 380$16,9303$18,530$23,160$21,3204$22,350$27,940$25 ,7105$26,170$32,720$30,1006$29,990$37,500$34,4907$ 33,810$42,280$38,8808$37,630$47,060$43,270Each additional
    person adds$3,820$4,780$4,390The poverty guideline figures are NOT the figures the Census Bureau uses to calculate the number of poor persons. The figures that the Census Bureau uses are the poverty thresholds. The Census Bureau provides an explanation of the difference between poverty thresholds and guidelines.[15] The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty.[14] The 2010 figure for a family of 4 with no children under 18 years of age is $22,541, while the figure for a family of 4 with 2 children under 18 is $22,162.[16] For comparison, the 2011 HHS poverty guideline for a family of 4 is $22,350. As of 2011-02-03, data for 2010 is only available as an XLS file (Microsoft Excel format), but data for earlier years is available as HTML web pages.[17]
    [edit] Numbers in other countries

    The official number of poor in the United States in 2008 is about 39.1 million people, greater in number but not percentage than the officially poor in Indonesia, which has a far lower Human Development Index and the next largest population after the United States.[18][19] The poverty level in the United States, with 12.65% (39.1 million people in poverty, of a total of 309 million) is comparable to the one in France, where 14% of the population live with less than 880 euros per month.[20][21]
    Number of poor are hard to compare across countries. Absolute income may be used but does not reflect the actual number of poor, which depend on relative income and cost of living in each country. Among developed countries, each country then has its own definition and threshold of what it means to be poor, but this is not adjusted for cost of living and social benefits. For instance, despite the fact that France and US have about the same threshold in terms of dollars amount for poverty, cost of living and health benefits may differ (with universal health insurance coverage for poor people in France). In general, it might be better to use the Human Poverty Index (HPI), Human Development Index (HDI) or other global measure to compare quality of living in different countries.
    [edit] Relative measures of poverty

    Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. "Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate can directly be linked to income inequality. When the standard of living among those in more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income inequality and increase. Conversely, the poverty rate can decrease, with low income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people's wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs. In 1959, a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64% of the median income. Thus, a poor family in 1999 had less income and therefore less purchasing power than wealthier members of society in 1959, and, therefore, "poverty" had increased. But, because this is a relative measure, this is not saying that a family in 1999 with the same amount of wealth and income as a family from 1959 had less purchasing power than the 1959 family.
    In the EU and for the OECD, "relative poverty" is defined as an income below 60% of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a comparable household. In Germany, for example, the official relative poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month (11,256 euros/year, $12,382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11,688 euros/year, $12,857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14 years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2,167 PPP) or 23,640 euros ($26,004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was 16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for poverty in Germany are "poverty" (50% median) and "strict poverty" (40% median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for "relative poverty" is much higher than the quota for "strict poverty". The U.S concept is best comparable to "strict poverty". By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income[22] (OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).
    Relying on income disparity to determine who is impoverished can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggests that consumer spending varies much less than income. In 2008, the ?poorest? one fifth of Americans households spent on average $12,955 per person for goods and services (other than taxes), the second quintile spent $14,168, the third $16,255, the fourth $19,695, while the ?richest? fifth spent $26,644. The disparity of expenditures is much less than the disparity of income.[23]
    [edit] The income distribution and relative poverty

    Although the relative approach theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought. First, the so-called standardization of income in both approaches is very similar. To make incomes comparable among households of different sizes, equivalence scales are used to standardize household income to the level of a single person household. In Europe, the modified OECD equivalence scale is used, which takes the combined value of 1 for the head of household, 0.5 for each additional household member older than 14 years and 0.3 for children. When compared to the US Census poverty lines, which is based on a defined basket of goods, for the most prevalent household types both standardization methods show to be very similar.
    Furthermore, the poverty threshold in Western-European countries is not always higher than the Orshansky threshold for a single person family. The actual Orchinsky poverty line for single person households in the US ($9645 in 2004) is very comparable to the relative poverty line in many Western-European countries (Belgium 2004: ?9315), while price levels are also similar.[citation needed] The reason why relative poverty measurement causes high poverty levels in the US, as demonstrated by F?rster,[22] is caused by distributional effects rather than real differences in wellbeing among EU-countries and the USA.
    The median household income is much higher in the US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from which the poverty line is derived. Although the paradigm of relative poverty is most valuable, this comparison of poverty lines show that the higher prevalence of relative poverty levels in the US are not an indicator of a more severe poverty problem but an indicator of larger inequalities between rich middle classes and the low-income households. It is therefore not correct to state that the US income distribution is characterised by a large proportion of households in poverty; it is characterized by relatively large income inequality but also high levels of prosperity of the middle classes. The 2007 poverty threshold for a three member family is 17,070.
    [edit] Poverty and demographics


    Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest cities in the United States.



    Poverty in Chester, Pennsylvania.


    In addition to family status, race/ethnicity and age also correlate with high poverty rates in the United States. Although data regarding race and poverty are more extensively published and cross tabulated the family status correlation is by far the strongest.
    [edit] Poverty and family status

    According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[24] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households [24] and 19.1% of all persons living alone.[24]
    [edit] By race/ethnicity and family status

    Among married families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[24] This number varied by ethnicity with
    5.4% of white persons,[25]
    8.3% of black persons,[26] and
    14.9% of Hispanic persons (of any nationality) [27] living in poverty.
    Among single parent families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[24] This number varied by ethnicity with
    30% of white persons,[25]
    40% of black persons,[26] and
    30% of Hispanic persons (of any nationality) [27] living in poverty.
    Among unrelated individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty.[24] This number varied by ethnicity with
    18% of white persons [28]
    27.9% of black persons [27] and
    27% of Hispanic persons (of any nationality) [29] living in poverty
    [edit] Poverty and race

    The US Census declared that in 2008 13.2% of the general population lived in poverty:[30]
    8.6% of all European Americans
    11.8% of all Asian Americans
    23.2% of all Hispanics (of any nationality)
    24.2% of all American Indians and Alaska Natives
    24.7% of all African Americans.
    About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white, but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and other minorities. 57% of all poor rural children are non-Hispanic white, compared with 28% of poor urban children.[31][copyright violation?]
    [edit] Poverty and age

    The US Census declared that in 2007 12.5% of the general population lived in poverty:
    18% of all people under age 18
    10.9% of all people 19-64, and
    9.7% of all people ages 65 and older[24]
    The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses a different measure for poverty and declared in 2008 that child poverty in the US is 20% and poverty among the elderly is 23%.[32] The non-profit advocacy group Feeding America has released a study (May 2009) based on 2005-2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Agriculture Department, which claims that 3.5 million children under the age of 5 are at risk of hunger in the United States. The study claims that in 11 states, Louisiana, which has the highest rate, followed by North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas, more than 20 percent of children under 5 are allegedly at risk of going hungry.The study was paid by ConAgra Foods, a large food company.[33]
    [edit] Food security

    Eighty-nine percent of the American households were food secure throughout the entire year of 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all of the household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%.[34]
    In 2008, eighty-five percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year.[35]
    [edit] Factors in poverty


    There are numerous factors related to poverty in the United States.
    • Income has a high correlation with educational levels. In 2007, the median earnings of household headed by individuals with less than a 9th grade education was $20,805 while households headed by high school graduates received $40,456, households headed holders of bachelor?s degree earned $77,605, and families headed by individuals with professional degrees earned $100,000.[36]
    • In many cases poverty is caused by job loss. In 2007, the poverty rate was 21.5% for individuals who were unemployed, but only 2.5% for individuals who were employed full time.[36]
    • In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with father in single parent family; and 47.1% in single parent family headed by mother.[37]
    • Income levels vary with age. For example, the median 2009 income for households headed by individuals age 15-24 was only $30,750, but increased to $50,188 for household headed by individuals age 25-34 and $61,083 for household headed by individuals 35-44.[38] Although the reasons are unclear, work experience and additional education may be factors.
    • Income levels vary along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, about 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.[39] The poverty rate is 9.9% for black married couples and only 30% of black children are born to married couples (see Marriage below). In 2007,11% of black women aged 30?44 without a high school diploma had a working spouse.[40][copyright violation?] The poverty rate for native born and naturalized whites is identical (9.6%). On the other hand, the poverty rate for naturalized blacks is 11.8% compared to 25.1% for native born blacks suggesting race alone does not explain income disparity. Not all minorities have low incomes. Asian families have higher incomes than all other ethnic groups. For example, the 2005 median income of Asian families was $68,957 compared to the median income of white families of $59,124.[41] Asians, however, report discrimination occurrences more frequently than blacks. Specifically, 31% of Asians reported employment discrimination compared to 26% of blacks in 2005.[42]
    • The relationship between tax rates and poverty is disputed. A study comparing high tax Scandinavian countries with the U. S. suggests high tax rates are inversely correlated with poverty rates.[43] The poverty rate, however, is low in some low tax countries such as Switzerland. A comparison of poverty rates between states reveals that some low tax states have low poverty rates. For example, New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate of any state in the U. S., and has very low taxes (46th among all states).It is true however that in those instances, both Switzerland and New Hampshire have a very high household income and other measures to levy or offset the lack of taxation. For example, Switzerland has Universal Healthcare and a free system of education for children as young as four years old.[44] New Hampshire has no state income tax or sales tax, but does have the nation's highest property taxes.[45]

    • The conservative Heritage Foundation speculates that illegal immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.[46]
    Much of the debate about poverty focuses on statistical measures of poverty and the clash between advocates and opponents of welfare programs and government regulation of the free market. Since measures can be either absolute or relative, it is possible that advocates for the different sides of this debate are basing their arguments on different ways of measuring poverty. It is often claimed that poverty is understated, yet there are some who also believe it is overstated; thus the accuracy of the current poverty threshold guidelines is subject to debate and considerable concern.
    [edit] Concerns regarding accuracy

    In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty. The findings of the panel were that "the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor."
    The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:
    ?According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.[47]?[edit] Understating poverty

    Many sociologists and government officials have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold.[48] A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold.[48] While the poverty threshold is updated for inflation every year, the basket of goods used to determine what constitutes being deprived of a socially acceptable miniumum standard of living has not been updated since 1955. As a result, the current poverty line only takes goods into account that were common more than 50 years ago, updating their cost using the Consumer Price Index. Mollie Orshansky, who devised the original goods basket and methodology to measure poverty, used by the U.S. government, in 1963-65, updated the goods basket in 2000, finding that the actual poverty threshold, i.e. the point where a person is excluded from the nation's prevailing consumption patterns, is at roughly 170% of the official poverty threshold.[5] According to John Schwarzt, a political scientist at the University of Arizona:
    ?The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen... The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum.?The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430.[49] With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing[citation needed], and no possibility of home ownership. In the Monterey area, where the low-pay industry of agriculture is the largest sector in the economy and the majority of the population lacks a college education the median home price was determined to be $723,790, requiring an upper middle class income which only roughly 20% of all households in the county boast.[49][50]
    Such fluctuations in local markets are however not considered in the Federal poverty threshold and thus leave many who live in poverty-like conditions out of the total number of households classified as poor.
    [edit] Overstating poverty


    Homeless American


    The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements.[51]
    A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not "make ends meet" without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.
    According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV."[52]
    Moreover, Swedish right-wing think tank Timbro points out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.[53]
    [edit] Fighting poverty

    There have been many governmental and nongovernmental efforts to reduce poverty and its effects. These range in scope from neighborhood efforts to campaigns with a national focus. They target specific groups affected by poverty such as children, people who are autistic, immigrants, or people who are homeless. Efforts to alleviate poverty use a disparate set of methods, such as advocacy, education, social work, legislation, direct service or charity, and community organizing.
    Recent debates have centered on the need for policies that focus on both "income poverty" and "asset poverty." Advocates for the approach argue that traditional governmental poverty policies focus solely on supplementing the income of the poor, through programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps.
    [edit] See also

    United States portal

    US Census report on Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage


    Other:
    International:
    [edit] References

    [edit] Further reading

    [edit] External links

    WHY are reports like this written like directions to assemble a kids jungle gym ?Good luck.
    You know, I think I would rather be a man than a god . We don't need anyone to believe in us. We just keep going anyhow. It's what we do.

  3. #57

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    I have to admit it. I started reading your response, but then I noticed how many links were provided and how long the actual article was and I gave up. Can you sum up what this post was supposed to mean or what it said? I will never click on all these links, but I don't want to discount your input.

  4. #58

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    I think we need a subset for poverty levels. I don't consider a home with a hi def TV, Blu Ray, wireless internet, laptops, 21" rims, PS3, full sleeves, neck tats, a stash of yayo, tec 9, and a government unemployment check to be poverty. I work in Oakland CA and the place is fully stocked with that subset. I hope no one is feeling sorry for that percentage.

  5. #59

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts View Post
    I think we need a subset for poverty levels. I don't consider a home with a hi def TV, Blu Ray, wireless internet, laptops, 21" rims, PS3, full sleeves, neck tats, a stash of yayo, tec 9, and a government unemployment check to be poverty. I work in Oakland CA and the place is fully stocked with that subset. I hope no one is feeling sorry for that percentage.
    Flop, I agree. It's just that people deny what's really going on. I don't know the agenda of funding that stuff, but they keep doing it. We got the fattest "poor" people in the world and people still feel sorry for them. Go to Africa and be poor, that means you starve. Yet, poor here means you still get 3000 calories a day, paid by others. (unless you sell that food card for drugs)

  6. #60

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Flop, I agree. It's just that people deny what's really going on. I don't know the agenda of funding that stuff, but they keep doing it. We got the fattest "poor" people in the world and people still feel sorry for them. Go to Africa and be poor, that means you starve. Yet, poor here means you still get 3000 calories a day, paid by others. (unless you sell that food card for drugs)
    Do you guys actually know people with this situation or are you basing it on nothing? Serious question because you sound like oblivious, unintentional racists who don't bother to look into issues that they have extremely strong and inflexible opinions about. Flop's post implies that everyone in poverty is a black drug dealer - are you guys capable of accepting that this is a much more serious and complex issue than lazy assholes that have all the opportunities to progress in society and squander them? It's pretty simple why we have fat poor people, fatty foods are the cheapest - A McDonalds meal for $5 of 1500 calories costs one-fifth as much as buying something at a decent supermarket that is far less calories. You don't have to be on the street, homeless and incapable of finding any food to be under the poverty line and suffering - are you guys serious about understanding this issue or just want to dismiss it from your preconceived notions no matter what's presented that you didn't know before because you never looked into it before? And yes, I'm drunk, so sorry for the potentially overly-confrontational language.
    Last edited by bwh27; 07-09-2011 at 03:32 AM.

  7. #61

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by bwh27 View Post
    Do you guys actually know people with this situation or are you basing it on nothing? Serious question because you sound like oblivious, unintentional racists who don't bother to look into issues that they have extremely strong and inflexible opinions about. Flop's post implies that everyone in poverty is a black drug dealer - are you guys capable of accepting that this is a much more serious and complex issue than lazy assholes that have all the opportunities to progress in society and squander them? It's pretty simple why we have fat poor people, fatty foods are the cheapest - A McDonalds meal for $5 of 1500 calories costs one-fifth as much as buying something at a decent supermarket that is far less calories. You don't have to be on the street, homeless and incapable of finding any food to be under the poverty line and suffering - are you guys serious about understanding this issue or just want to dismiss it from your preconceived notions no matter what's presented that you didn't know before because you never looked into it before? And yes, I'm drunk, so sorry for the potentially overly-confrontational language.
    Without trying to sound like some "do gooder" or something, I actually do have first hand experience with this. I volunteer at a homeless shelter and a food pantry. Like I've said before, some people really are just in the midst of bad luck. Those people pull themselves out of it, though. With a little help from actual people and faces instead of a check in the mail, they actually try and help themselves and don't stay on welfare forever.

    Then you have the people who never even try to help themselves and blame everyone else for their own problems. I know you think it is a complex issue, but I suggest you volunteer at these places (if you don't already). I used to feel sorry for everyone in there. I believed their sob stories. Then I saw some people working hard and making their situation better, while others just kept bitchin and asking for seconds in the meal line. People of all races and genders fall into both catagories. So, I have come to the conclusion that it is mostly up to the individual to make their own situation better. That has been my experience and I will still volunteer there because I think it is a worthy cause. But to just throw money at something without actual help doesn't work. People who make bad decisions will make them whether they have money or not.

    And finally, what were you drinking? Beer? Whiskey? Wine?

  8. #62
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Q,
    This was posted just to show THAT even the so-called experts have no idea how to even categorize POVERTY and so they release garbled up Bull shit like this report ( which no one in their right mind would read ) and pretty much do as they please .
    I just deleted about 500 words because there exists no way to ratify this situation w/out sounding like a Klansman .
    we should start with the elimination of a welfare state and rid our minds of entitlements and other non sense words-cut our $ expenditures to foreign governments by 50% to start/ slash Education and DOD spending by 1/2- and start rebuilding the infrastructure of America-use this as a jumping off point for a jobs program and the NEXT Bernie Madoff situation we should publicly execute the gulty-everyone/anyone caught stealing pensions shoul do 5-10 years in isolation-as long as these white collar crimes are treated so softly (and in cases of golden parachutes) rewarded-these crimes WILL NEVER stop.
    the ALTERNATIVE plans are in place-FEMA civilian labor camps , etc.
    In reality, I do NOT see where the people have any say in matters anymore.
    You know, I think I would rather be a man than a god . We don't need anyone to believe in us. We just keep going anyhow. It's what we do.

  9. #63

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    And finally, what were you drinking? Beer? Whiskey? Wine?
    Whiskey, always. I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow or Monday.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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