• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

You got it. It's the Tragedy of the Commons problem. If everyone cooperated, everyone would be better off. But by and large each individual won't cooperate unless there's some assurance that others will do the same. That's what government is for: to provide that mechanism and assurance.

In our case, we are lied to about the assurance while the big guys (banks and corporations) get the favors.
 
I would go a step further and add that the investment must include programs geared at solving the problems which lead to poverty, namely lack of education and job skills.

The President's Job's plan includes this very approach:

"A popular idea in President Obama's new jobs bill could represent a step toward fundamentally transforming the existing system of federal jobless benefits. Some critics say such a move is long overdue--but others worry that a major overhaul could threaten a program that since the Depression has been a core component of the social safety net.
Obama's jobs measure, sent to Congress Monday, contains a provision that would encourage states to replicate a voluntary Georgia program that allows jobless workers to continue collecting unemployment benefits while training with potential employers."

"The initiative was one of the few from the president's plan that drew an enthusiastic response from Republicans. After Obama talked up the idea in his speech to Congress last week, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the number two Republican in the House, noted in response that it had originally come from the GOP, and called it "something that we should be able to get to work on right away."
Could Obama
 
For one thing, your value judgment about the importance of my bank account relative to your well-being (whatever that means to you) is nothing more than your value judgment. The two do not have anything to do with one another, and your attitude does not give you access to my money.

So if private enterprise had no restraints or regulations it would have zero influence on the public? Remember when it was cheaper for factories to dump waste into rivers rather than to dispose of it correctly? They had to start regulating waste management when rivers were catching on fire and drinking water was being contaminated.

I don't want your money. I want clean drinking water regardless of how much it costs your factory to dispose of pollutants correctly. See the difference?

For another thing, why can't the public look out for its own interest by way of their conscious, rational decisions?
That's what these regulations are doing. Public opinion started frowning upon lead paint and poisonous cars.

Why does someone else have to make their decisions and do the advocating the way parents do for a child? Private enterprise and public interest go hand-in-hand, yet you paint them as competing forces.

Energy companies are trying to step up natural gas fracturing as we speak. If you're not familiar with the process, it uses millions of gallons of fresh water per well. This draws up local water supplies away from communities and leaves behind contaminates like arsenic, copper and other carcinogens.

I don't know about you, but I like to keep faucet explosions to a minimum when I'm using my sink or shower.

I guess that's because leftism assumes people cannot make their own best choices. Am I right?

No.
 
I can't speak for him, but I don't think anyone is proposing that anyone should be prevented from accumulating wealth. OTOH, I think that it's in everone's interest to prevent gross imbalance in wealth accumulation such as we're seeing now, where 400 people control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the people in the the country.

This is true, but not quite what I'm getting at.

As I made it clear above, one shouldn't be alowed to pursue wealth if it involves putting entire communities at risk. One's freedom will often negate someone else's freedom.
 
Jacking up taxes on the rich has only made dem politicians wealthier and jacked up the deficit

Reagan cut taxes and grew the largest deficit in history. Clinton Raised taxes and oversaw the largest deficit reduction since WWII. G.W. cut taxes and oversaw the new largest deficit growth in history. Now we're leaving the tax cuts in place under Obama and the deficit will continue to grow.

We better lay off some teachers and firemen to compensate.



I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.
 
Last edited:
Reagan cut taxes and grew the largest deficit in history. Clinton Raised taxes and oversaw the largest deficit reduction since WWII. G.W. cut taxes and oversaw the new largest deficit growth in history. Now we're leaving the tax cuts in place under Obama and the deficit will continue to grow.

We better lay off some teachers and firemen to compensate.
Your credibility may actually rise a tiny bit, once you decide who actually grew the BIGGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY. :roll:
 
I don't understand. Are you saying that high levels of income inequality and poverty are not associated with political instability? You could say that... you'd just be wrong.
My point stands - your yardstick isn't meaningful.
 
The President's Job's plan includes this very approach:

"A popular idea in President Obama's new jobs bill could represent a step toward fundamentally transforming the existing system of federal jobless benefits. Some critics say such a move is long overdue--but others worry that a major overhaul could threaten a program that since the Depression has been a core component of the social safety net.
Obama's jobs measure, sent to Congress Monday, contains a provision that would encourage states to replicate a voluntary Georgia program that allows jobless workers to continue collecting unemployment benefits while training with potential employers."

"The initiative was one of the few from the president's plan that drew an enthusiastic response from Republicans. After Obama talked up the idea in his speech to Congress last week, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the number two Republican in the House, noted in response that it had originally come from the GOP, and called it "something that we should be able to get to work on right away."
Could Obama

That isn't my plan. My plan isn't for those on unemployment who had jobs. My plan is for people persistently and consistently living in poverty due to a lack of education and job skills training. And my plan wouldn't be voluntary.
 
Or we could focus on the real issue here. All of the entitlements, stimulus programs, and attempts to "save or create" jobs, all the unemployment extensions, food stamps, and other assistance programs have not halted the increase in poverty one would expect from a recession/depression.

And what about the bail outs, subsidies, and tax loopholes given to the other side of the economic spectrum? i see no mention of those. You seem outraged that people receive extentions for unemployment, and yet the unemployment rate is still unreasonably high. So let's say food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlements are cut for low income people- what then? Do they support their families working part time at Dollar General? Surely you have some suggestions on how employment can be increased... I mean other than the same accusations of laziness and lack of accountability of the lower income population.

Many corporations are raking in record profits, and yet unemployment remains high, and many of these companies refuse to pay their fair share in taxes:


Large U.S. corporations are pressuring Congress and the White House to exempt overseas corporate profits from taxes, a policy shift that critics say would hurt the economy and increase the federal deficit.
A fight is shaping up between supporters of territorial taxation, as this policy proposal is known, and opponents who favor a different reform -- repealing a tax law that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on their overseas income.


The two sides are facing off over an old and worsening problem -- how to fix the system for taxing companies' foreign income. Both sides agree the system is not working and a new approach is needed, but their solutions are direct opposites.
"A tax system that raises little revenue, but imposes high compliance and administrative burdens on taxpayers and the IRS is the very definition of a bad tax system. Unfortunately, that is the system we have," said Philip West, a former U.S. Treasury Department tax official, at a Senate hearing.
Case in point: business software and hardware giant Oracle Corp. Based in California, Oracle generates 60 percent of its nearly $36 billion in annual sales overseas.


I see conservatives addressing entitlements for the poor, but they conveniently forget the rest. ah well. In the end, none of this will matter once hyper inflation kicks in:

The U.S. Senate, in an unusual procedure, cleared the way Thursday for the U.S. to lift its borrowing authority by $500 billion to $15.19 trillion, enough to keep the support federal government borrowing through late January or early February.

Great. Trillions of dollars and it will only last until when... January? :shock: Even if there were increases in wages and employment, it appears that the US treasury will continue to print more fiat currency, and as this QE continues, the value of the dollar will continue to decline. Apparently, Americans don't mind that the government is essentially following the same fiscal policies as Zimbabwe. And as the dollar buys less, poverty will increase. Right- poverty is increasing because people are lazy.

So why don't we take a look at new ideas, methods, and means of addressing poverty, which should and, quite frankly, must include some sort of self-accountability measures,

For whom?

Ah yes, the poor. The lazy parasites who dare to collect unemployment when there are no jobs.

COL variation considerations, adjustments on what "impoverished living" really is, and expectations on those in poverty to be active in their own ascent out of such a lifestyle? Why don't we address the fact that our grand solution to poverty has merely been subsistence, when we should have been focused on providing means for those in poverty to find pathways to prosperity?

Yes, because those pesky poor people are the real problem here. :roll:

Nah, you're right. Let's go on a class warfare rant about the rich and their taxes, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the fact that poverty is rising.

Right. The corporations who continue to send jobs overseas, and refuse to pay taxes couldn't possibly be apart of the problem. It must be those lazy, good for nothing, low income people. Maybe if they'd just quit breeding-

Those in poverty share a lot of common traits. Chiefly among them? More children, less education, distinct lack of job skills, and a lower marriage rate than families above the poverty line.

uh huh- So what do you recommend? Let their children starve, put them in foster care, mandatory sterilization-what? You complain that the low income people are responsible for a sizable percent of this nation's problems, but I think you listen to too much talk radio.
 
I thought trickle down economics was supposed to increase jobs and revenue? We clearly see they did not and the GOP is only proposing more of the same.

Trickle down hasn't worked efficiently on the national scale due to the amount of goods manufactured overseas instead of in the states. My preference is that we give trickle up a chance to balance it out.
 
The most recent bump in poverty is certainly a direct result of the recession, and it would certainly be far worse but for the stimulus and associated unemployment extensions.

The fact is that the wealthiest 400 people in America have a net worth that's equivalent to to the bottom 50% of ALL Americans, and that is a real problem. The wealthy have to pay more taxes because, for the past 30-40 years, the rich have been hoovering up all the country's wealth.

So why doesn't Obama address the issue above instead of lumping folks who make $250K into the debate!
 
And what about the bail outs, subsidies, and tax loopholes given to the other side of the economic spectrum? i see no mention of those. You seem outraged that people receive extentions for unemployment, and yet the unemployment rate is still unreasonably high. So let's say food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlements are cut for low income people- what then? Do they support their families working part time at Dollar General? Surely you have some suggestions on how employment can be increased... I mean other than the same accusations of laziness and lack of accountability of the lower income population.

Many corporations are raking in record profits, and yet unemployment remains high, and many of these companies refuse to pay their fair share in taxes:



I see conservatives addressing entitlements for the poor, but they conveniently forget the rest. ah well. In the end, none of this will matter once hyper inflation kicks in:

The U.S. Senate, in an unusual procedure, cleared the way Thursday for the U.S. to lift its borrowing authority by $500 billion to $15.19 trillion, enough to keep the support federal government borrowing through late January or early February.

Great. Trillions of dollars and it will only last until when... January? :shock: Even if there were increases in wages and employment, it appears that the US treasury will continue to print more fiat currency, and as this QE continues, the value of the dollar will continue to decline. Apparently, Americans don't mind that the government is essentially following the same fiscal policies as Zimbabwe. And as the dollar buys less, poverty will increase. Right- poverty is increasing because people are lazy.



For whom?

Ah yes, the poor. The lazy parasites who dare to collect unemployment when there are no jobs.



Yes, because those pesky poor people are the real problem here. :roll:



Right. The corporations who continue to send jobs overseas, and refuse to pay taxes couldn't possibly be apart of the problem. It must be those lazy, good for nothing, low income people. Maybe if they'd just quit breeding-



uh huh- So what do you recommend? Let their children starve, put them in foster care, mandatory sterilization-what? You complain that the low income people are responsible for a sizable percent of this nation's problems, but I think you listen to too much talk radio.

Not only did you take a flying leap off the cliff to make a lot of assumptions, but you put a lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.

I'll make this painfully clear for you, and perhaps you'll actually take the time to understand what I'm saying instead of standing on your little soap box, attacking an idea I didn't express:

1. I want to provide programs to help the poor overcome the obstacles that keep them poor, namely lack of education and job skills.
2. I never said we should remove their benefits or let children starve in the process of helping the poor acquire the above skills.
3. I never said that the poor are lazy or "parasites" or even blamed them for the lack of education or job skills.
4. My point in attacking the entitlements designed to "prevent" poverty was to point out that they don't, in fact, prevent poverty. These programs sustain people who are still living in poverty despite the money/programs.

See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.

But by all means, turn my statement into a rich vs. poor argument. Jump to conclusions. Attack me for wanting a better program and a better opportunity for people. Go ahead. It just proves you don't care what I have to say, you just want to get up there and rant away about something not only unrelated to my argument, but completely outside of any logical interpretation of what I was saying.
 
Last edited:
Not only did you take a flying leap off the cliff to make a lot of assumptions, but you put a lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.

I'll make this painfully clear for you, and perhaps you'll actually take the time to understand what I'm saying instead of standing on your little soap box, attacking an idea I didn't express:

1. I want to provide programs to help the poor overcome the obstacles that keep them poor, namely lack of education and job skills.
2. I never said we should remove their benefits or let children starve in the process of helping the poor acquire the above skills.
3. I never said that the poor are lazy or "parasites" or even blamed them for the lack of education or job skills.
4. My point in attacking the entitlements designed to "prevent" poverty was to point out that they don't, in fact, prevent poverty. These programs sustain people who are still living in poverty despite the money/programs.

See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.

But by all means, turn my statement into a rich vs. poor argument. Jump to conclusions. Attack me for wanting a better program and a better opportunity for people. Go ahead. It just proves you don't care what I have to say, you just want to get up there and rant away about something not only unrelated to my argument, but completely outside of any logical interpretation of what I was saying.


Some people would still rather bring the fight to class warfare rather then read what a person is actually saying. I think they find it easier then offering reasonable solutions to programs that just don't work. Welfare does nothing but make life sustainable for those on it, without doing a thing to help them get off the roles of taxpayer dollars.

I would support a system much like this: Welfare needs to be a 4 year program, where we pay for child care while a person is sent to a trade school, or college (2 year program) paid for by the government. Plus all the benefits they are now getting. After two years we continue to pay for child care for another year, while that person then goes out and gets a job, at the end of 3 years all benefits are cut by 50% including child care payments, at the end of the 4th year … you are now off welfare, and barring an accident that physically disables you from working, you are never allowed to welfare benefits again.

I feel this is fair ... as well as being hard line. We give the people a trade, we support them while they get this education, then diminish their benefits over 2 more years. We given them the tools needed, supported them during this time, that's fair, the hard line comes by saying after doing all this for you, we are no longer responsible for your well being.
 
Some people would still rather bring the fight to class warfare rather then read what a person is actually saying. I think they find it easier then offering reasonable solutions to programs that just don't work. Welfare does nothing but make life sustainable for those on it, without doing a thing to help them get off the roles of taxpayer dollars.

I would support a system much like this: Welfare needs to be a 4 year program, where we pay for child care while a person is sent to a trade school, or college (2 year program) paid for by the government. Plus all the benefits they are now getting. After two years we continue to pay for child care for another year, while that person then goes out and gets a job, at the end of 3 years all benefits are cut by 50% including child care payments, at the end of the 4th year … you are now off welfare, and barring an accident that physically disables you from working, you are never allowed to welfare benefits again.

I feel this is fair ... as well as being hard line. We give the people a trade, we support them while they get this education, then diminish their benefits over 2 more years. We given them the tools needed, supported them during this time, that's fair, the hard line comes by saying after doing all this for you, we are no longer responsible for your well being.

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.
 
Data released by the Census Bureau today showed the proportion of people living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent last year from 14.3 percent in 2009, and median household income declined 2.3 percent. The number of Americans living in poverty was the highest in the 52 years since the Census Bureau began gathering that statistic. Those figures may have worsened in recent months as the economy weakened.


We all know the rich have gotten far richer in the last decade....So come one Corporate cheerleaders tell us why the rich and the corporations need another big tax cut...we can see how much bush' tax cuts have benefitted everyone just by this article.


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

The poor get poorer. The real problem is that nothing the government has done was done to improve the lot of the American people. It was all meant to serve the aristocracy, their buddies in the banks and wall street and in corporations. Those are the people who benefited the most at the expense of the People.

It's a bit absurd and completely confusing to me as to how people can overlook this behavior.
 
The poor get poorer. The real problem is that nothing the government has done was done to improve the lot of the American people. It was all meant to serve the aristocracy, their buddies in the banks and wall street and in corporations. Those are the people who benefited the most at the expense of the People.

It's a bit absurd and completely confusing to me as to how people can overlook this behavior.

The sheer nature of the tax system alone should make it obvious that this nation primarily looks out for the most affluent citizens. U.S. businesses sit on a level of cash and liquidity that is similar in proportion to the entire reserves held by China, job growth is meager at best, the deficit is exploding primarily due to the unemployment situation, tax revenue as a % of output is at levels only seen in the Great Depression, and the GOP wants to cut taxes and spending as a means to provide 'certainty"?
 
So if private enterprise had no restraints or regulations it would have zero influence on the public? Remember when it was cheaper for factories to dump waste into rivers rather than to dispose of it correctly? They had to start regulating waste management when rivers were catching on fire and drinking water was being contaminated.

I don't want your money. I want clean drinking water regardless of how much it costs your factory to dispose of pollutants correctly. See the difference?

Yes, it appears to to be the difference between general welfare and individual welfare. Clearly when discussing well-being or public interest it is important to differentiate between, for example, transportation, environmental regs, law enforcement, and then other things like subsidizing an individual's grocery bill, monthly rent, managing his retirement for him, drug abuse treatment, or eventual need for a $400,000 surgery to redo the plumbing in his heart after a lifetime of unhealthy habits.
 
That isn't my plan. My plan isn't for those on unemployment who had jobs.

My plan is for people persistently and consistently living in poverty due to a lack of education and job skills training. And my plan wouldn't be voluntary.

Who do you think has swelled the poverty numbers? Under the welfare reform of 1996, those not disabled can only remain on welfare for two years.

So let's hear your plan?
 
Who do you think has swelled the poverty numbers? Under the welfare reform of 1996, those not disabled can only remain on welfare for two years.

So let's hear your plan?

all we hear is about the deadbeats on welfare. it's a myth, pure and simple.
 
See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.

We reformed welfare for the poor in 1996. Now what we need to do is reform welfare for the rich.
 
Not only did you take a flying leap off the cliff to make a lot of assumptions, but you put a lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.

I'll make this painfully clear for you, and perhaps you'll actually take the time to understand what I'm saying instead of standing on your little soap box, attacking an idea I didn't express:

1. I want to provide programs to help the poor overcome the obstacles that keep them poor, namely lack of education and job skills.
2. I never said we should remove their benefits or let children starve in the process of helping the poor acquire the above skills.
3. I never said that the poor are lazy or "parasites" or even blamed them for the lack of education or job skills.
4. My point in attacking the entitlements designed to "prevent" poverty was to point out that they don't, in fact, prevent poverty. These programs sustain people who are still living in poverty despite the money/programs.

See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.

But by all means, turn my statement into a rich vs. poor argument. Jump to conclusions. Attack me for wanting a better program and a better opportunity for people. Go ahead. It just proves you don't care what I have to say, you just want to get up there and rant away about something not only unrelated to my argument, but completely outside of any logical interpretation of what I was saying.

i'm not sure what you want doesn't already exist. there are many, many education and jobs skills programs for the disadvantaged. in fact, these types of programs were part of welfare reform. and in many cases, these programs ARE mandatory. what's happening now is that despite record profits, companies are not hiring. they are sitting on their cash, giving outrageous bonuses to ceos while letting the wages of the masses stagnate. that's why providing incentives to these compaines for creating jobs is a good thing.
 
all we hear is about the deadbeats on welfare. it's a myth, pure and simple.

Excellent point! I think many people would be surprised their beliefs about welfare are myths. Here are some of the major ones below:

Five Major Welfare Myths

"Myth #1: The typical welfare recipient is a black inner city single mother.

The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families account for even more--one out of four.

Myth #2: The poor are lazy.

Forty percent of poor adults work, although many cannot find full time jobs. Indeed, even when they do they may still be in poverty. Some 11 million jobs in 1991 paid less than $11,500, $2,000 under the official poverty level for a family of four. Of those poor adults who don't work, 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.

Myth #3: Welfare mothers breed welfare daughters.

Two long term studies reported by the House Ways and Means Committee in 1992 found that only about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves become highly dependent on welfare. The rest rely on welfare sporadically or not at all.

Myth #4: Throwing people off the welfare rolls will eventually improve their lives and save taxpayers money.

The most celebrated experiment in welfare reform has occurred in Michigan. Governor Engler completely eliminated his state's $240 million General Assistance(GA) payments to 83,000 childless, able bodied adults.Only 8 percent of these former GA recipients found employment and they earn
an average of only $120 a week. Many sell blood for $20 a pint. Over one third lost their homes when the program ended. As one study notes, if only 5 percent of these former GA recipients end up in prison or a state psychiatric institution all the taxpayer savings from ending General Assistance will be lost.

Myth #5: Welfare is cheaper than creating well paying public jobs.

In his book "Securing the Right to Employment", Philip Harvey calculates that in 1986 we could have achieved full employment by creating l0.4 million public service jobs. He further assumed that the average annual wage would be $13,000. The cost of such a program would have been a daunting $142 billion. But when we deduct from this sum the taxes that would be paid by these new workers and the savings from drastically reduced unemployment insurance payments, welfare , Medicaid, food stamps and other expenditures directly linked to low income and unemployment overall we would have spent $13 billion less. A full employment program, even excluding the social savingsfrom reduced family violence, more stable communities, and less crime, pays for itself in reduced welfare expenditures.

If we can overcome these five myths about welfare we may well engage in a national dialogue with meaningful results, not only for the one in five Americans who now live in poverty, but for the nation as a whole. But this will occur only when we challenge and overcome the welfare myths that paralyze our thinking."
https://www.msu.edu/user/skourtes/myths.html
 
We can throw out any study that uses words like "highly welfare dependent" .

All that means is they had a desired result and took out enough people until they got there.
 
We can throw out any study that uses words like "highly welfare dependent" .

All that means is they had a desired result and took out enough people until they got there.

well, you could try to prove that statement. in fact, especially these days, when welfare is limited, children don't see their mothers on welfare for a long period of time, so are not inured to it like you might think.

welfare is not our big issue......medicare is. jobs are.
 
Back
Top Bottom