Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 135

Thread: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

  1. #101
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    My understanding is that the program the president is proposing is for those on unemployment specifically. That doesn't cover every or even most of those in poverty. I also never said I don't support such a program.
    I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, where do you the increased numbers on poverty come from? Could it be the previously employed, or people that can only find minimum wage jobs? Get the connection?

    As posted before, here is the breakdown of people living in poverty at the date of the study:

    "90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."
    Last edited by Catawba; 09-14-11 at 06:11 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Your credibility may actually rise a tiny bit, once you decide who actually grew the BIGGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY.
    Oversaw, American, oversaw.

    Bardos statement doesn't make sense at all without that key qualifier.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  3. #103
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, where do you the increased numbers on poverty come from? Could it be the previously employed, or people that can only find minimum wage jobs? Get the connection?

    As posted before, here is the breakdown of people living in poverty at the date of the study:

    "90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."
    I get the point on the recession increasing poverty. My point was that poverty existed prior to and will exist after the recession ends. Your repetition of the question doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I have. Repeatedly. You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the recession we wouldn't have poverty. You know that's false. We've seen 3-4% on average in increased poverty since the recession began. So if we see a 3-4% decrease when the recession ends we'll still have 12-13% poverty. Are you getting this at all? Here, in bullet points:

    1. Poverty existed before the recession.
    2. Povery was not decreasing prior to the recession.
    3. Low unemployment does not eliminate poverty.
    4. We will still have poverty when the recession ends.
    5. Creating jobs won't solve even half of the poverty cases we have. It would, presumably, solve about 25%, given the pre-recession and recession numbers.
    6. That must mean there are other reasons we continue to see stagnate or growing poverty numbers.
    7. I've mentioned those reasons several, several times. Any every one of those reasons is agreed upon by most researchers and easily accessible through a simple google search.
    8. None of the misinterpretations, clarifications, or attempts to bait answers you think I'm avoiding giving will take away from the fact that my initial post was correct.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  4. #104
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I get the point on the recession increasing poverty. My point was that poverty existed prior to and will exist after the recession ends. Your repetition of the question doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I have. Repeatedly. You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the recession we wouldn't have poverty. You know that's false. We've seen 3-4% on average in increased poverty since the recession began. So if we see a 3-4% decrease when the recession ends we'll still have 12-13% poverty. Are you getting this at all?
    Yes I am getting it, that's why I posted the breakdown of those in poverty before the recession: ""90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."


    Here, in bullet points:

    1. Poverty existed before the recession.
    2. Povery was not decreasing prior to the recession.
    3. Low unemployment does not eliminate poverty.
    4. We will still have poverty when the recession ends.
    5. Creating jobs won't solve even half of the poverty cases we have. It would, presumably, solve about 25%, given the pre-recession and recession numbers.
    6. That must mean there are other reasons we continue to see stagnate or growing poverty numbers.
    7. I've mentioned those reasons several, several times. Any every one of those reasons is agreed upon by most researchers and easily accessible through a simple google search.
    8. None of the misinterpretations, clarifications, or attempts to bait answers you think I'm avoiding giving will take away from the fact that my initial post was correct.
    The 400 top wage earners own more of the country's wealth than 50% of the people in this country. Now, what if we paid a living wage for full time work? What do you think that would do for the poverty numbers?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    So why doesn't Obama address the issue above instead of lumping folks who make $250K into the debate!
    Good cop, bad cop? Honestly I don't know why this obviously low number is used.

    Except to "tie" the income of hard working small business owners with hedge fund managers. To put the former on the same "team" as the latter?
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #106
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yes I am getting it, that's why I posted the breakdown of those in poverty before the recession: ""90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."




    The 400 top wage earners own more of the country's wealth than 50% of the people in this country. Now, what if we paid a living wage for full time work? What do you think that would do for the poverty numbers?
    Minimum wage at 40 hours is above poverty for a single person. And why are we talking about the top 400 wage earners? Here's a shocker: I don't care how much wealth they (or anybody else) earns, as long as they are earning it. I want people in poverty to succeed. I do not believe for one second that we need to target "rich people" to make that happen. I think we can have a discussion about solving poverty without demanding the heads of the rich on platters. I think we can have a dicussion about solving poverty without turning it into a "conservatives hate the poor", "rich hate the poor", "rich people keep people poor" bull****.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  7. #107
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Good cop, bad cop? Honestly I don't know why this obviously low number is used.

    Except to "tie" the income of hard working small business owners with hedge fund managers. To put the former on the same "team" as the latter?

    All the recent proposals I have seen use the millionaire threshold. I think the lower $250,000 threshold has been dropped from consideration.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    That's pretty much the plan I had in mind, although I hadn't thought through the timeline for benefits in as much detail as you had.
    I don't really have any problem with these sorts of plans.

    They will be great IF there are jobs available for them when they complete training. If not, they end up cut off with the bad ultimate consequences like homelessness and starvation.

    There is a job shortage in this country right now. Simply telling the poor to "get a job" in this environment is not realistic when there aren't enough jobs to be had for those who ALREADY have the training.

    I understand this is not what you are doing, its just a factor I think is important to keep in mind.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #109
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    I don't really have any problem with these sorts of plans.

    They will be great IF there are jobs available for them when they complete training. If not, they end up cut off with the bad ultimate consequences like homelessness and starvation.

    There is a job shortage in this country right now. Simply telling the poor to "get a job" in this environment is not realistic when there aren't enough jobs to be had for those who ALREADY have the training.

    I understand this is not what you are doing, its just a factor I think is important to keep in mind.
    My initital thought was to make the training/education programs geared towards "recession proof" or "in demand" fields. Things like HVAC, medicine, plumbing, insurance, etc. Then I figured there'd be too much kick-back from people because I'm "limiting their choices" or something.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  10. #110
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    This will be the last response from me, because this isn't the first time you've absolutely miscontrued my statements and accused me of saying/believing things I don't believe. Debating with you is pointless, so it won't happen again.
    I accept your concession, but reject your false accusations. I haven't "miscontrued" anything. Rather, I have taken your opinions to their full conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I didn't discuss time limits in the sense that I think we should have one specifically.
    Sure. So you argued for time limits, but you don't think should be any? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I didn't say that the entitlements CAUSE poverty. I said they don't FIX poverty.
    Right, so you don't believe that people who receive entitlements have less incentive to pull themselves out of poverty, but instead, it maintains the "status quo." Let's not mince words here.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I listed several common causes of poverty.
    Yes, children, a lack of education, and low skill level. At least two of those "causes" have already been addressed. And debunked. I explained why there is increased poverty. I explained why the economy cannot recover without jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I indicated my plan in this thread. I've also indicated it in several other threads. Also, on IRC.
    The only "plan" you mentioned in this thread has already been addressed. Whatever you have posted in other threads is not relevant here.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I don't have a jobs plan,
    Ah, well there you go. You don't have a plan to create jobs. I see no reason to debate you further, either. You've basically told me that you have no plan. Well done.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    and I clearly included the fact that poverty was not declining prior to the recession, indicating that even without high unemployment, we still have poverty, which means not having available jobs is only a small part of the overall problem.
    BS. Jobs are the biggest factor regarding poverty. It's basic economics 101. Without jobs, people don't have money. Therefore, they are in poverty. Without decent wages, even those with employment will still see a decline in their standard of living. Once again, this is basic. It's laughable to claim that a lack of employment is "only a small part of the [] problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    You most CERTAINLY made this an issue of rich v. poor.
    Nonsense. I stated facts. then, I provided links.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    That wasn't hyperbole, that was metaphor.


    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    There were no "obvious generalizations". There were facts.
    Your opinions most certainly aren't facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    You misinterpreted facts and you're flat out wrong. Sorry.
    I never said we should stop giving any aid to people who need it. Ever. Like seriously, never. You won't find it anywhere on this board.
    The qualifier here is "people who need it." You go on to claim that poverty needs to be redefined. Why? So less people can receive aid?


    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    So there, that's it. Maybe next time instead of making stupid accusations and attacking something that I didn't do you'll actually do the research into what I've said...or, better yet, ask. Then again, I won't be responding to you moving forward, so just go ahead and keep being 100% wrong. That's fine.
    That's your choice. But if you think you're 100% correct, it is you who is mistaken.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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