Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 135

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

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,360

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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!

  2. #62
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    The same place as the Conservative criticism of Bush.


    Ahh finally some honesty, so you now admit to be no better then a conservative?

  3. #63
    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 evanescence View Post
    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? 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.



    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 by tessaesque; 09-14-11 at 12:02 PM.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  4. #64
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    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.

  5. #65
    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 The Barbarian View Post
    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.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  6. #66
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    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.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #67
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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"?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Bardo View Post
    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.

  9. #69
    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
    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?
    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

  10. #70
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    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.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •