Page 16 of 70 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 697

Thread: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The class warfare is being done by the right. The right can't get their mouths off of the corporate shaft long enough to wipe their chins.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    I guess poor is poverty level or lower and "low income" is just above poverty level up to 199% of it. So if the poverty level is $25k, low income would be $25,001-50k?

    I'm not sure.
    That would be where my daughter falls. She bought a house and a new car this year.

  3. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And you're for policies that favor them? I'll need your conservative card now.
    Have you not been reading my many posts on this? I am not for policies that "favor" them. I am against monetary policies that hurt them though.

    And we expected? Republicans will do what?
    That's a fairly wide open question. McCain would have done nothing either. Gingrinch nor Romney likely will. Paul? Yeah, maybe so. But as a supporter of Obama I wouldn't want to have to defend him by saying he's no different than Gingrich.

  4. #154
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Have you not been reading my many posts on this? I am not for policies that "favor" them. I am against monetary policies that hurt them though.
    Mostly just been reading your response to me. Can you give me an example? What I see more is that policy favors business, which is largely what conservatives seem to want as best I can tell.

    That's a fairly wide open question. McCain would have done nothing either. Gingrinch nor Romney likely will. Paul? Yeah, maybe so. But as a supporter of Obama I wouldn't want to have to defend him by saying he's no different than Gingrich.
    There are issues other than the economy. And out side of favoring business, the two are different. Even Paul would like be force to favor business as the president is not congress. The link between business and politicans is close, joined at the hiop, with both using the other. As our system is right now, as long as money is free speech, there is virtually no likelihood of that changing.

    But that wouldn't control the economy either. If government was removed altogether, the economy would still go up and down and risk absolute failure from time to time. And if government was highly active, the same would be true.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Mostly just been reading your response to me. Can you give me an example? What I see more is that policy favors business, which is largely what conservatives seem to want as best I can tell.
    You'll note that I do not put that as my lean. I am conservative in many areas as I'm going to bet you could say you are also. I wish the current policies favored business. The current policies (and for quite a number of years) have favored Wall Street. What is good for one is not necessarily good for the other.

    The QE programs have hurt the lower classes a lot. Attacking the dollar (which is what the QE programs do) makes nearly everything more expensive and as we have seen with no correlating benefit for the lower classes. Their income is not keeping up.

    There are issues other than the economy. And out side of favoring business, the two are different. Even Paul would like be force to favor business as the president is not congress. The link between business and politicans is close, joined at the hiop, with both using the other. As our system is right now, as long as money is free speech, there is virtually no likelihood of that changing.
    Again, favoring business in a general term is not the problem. There is a difference. I'll give an example. An imperfect one as it generalizes but the basis is there. Let's say we cut taxes for businesses. They can in turn lower costs or not raise costs. They can invest in the company. They can pocket the money for a rainy day. None which are bad things.

    Now lets say we lower taxes for a financial institute. What they will do is take this money and put it into the market driving up prices. Yes, they could use it to invest in a new company which they still do in part which is why I say my example is not perfect BUT we see less and less of that as opposed to simply plowing it into commodities.

  6. #156
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    This article is somewhat useless on its own.

    The "1 in 2" is based off a NEW method of measuring and a new method of categorizing people. It gives no insight what so ever as to what past numbers would be if this NEW method of measuring and categorizing was used. As such there is zero facts to actually use as a reference point. The ONLY reference for any kind of starting point is from the almost ancient time period of....2009. And the current number has grown over the 2 yeras by 4 million...or an increase of 2.8%.

    Using these new methods of measurement and categorizing, was it "1 in 4" people classified as such in 2000? In 1996? Was it 1 in 8? Or was it 1 in 3? Without knowing that there's no way to know really how big of a deal or shift this is in a historical and rational way.

    Yes, the economy is not doing great right now and there are definite problems. I think it’s hard to make specific judgments on specific polices based singularly off the info in this story because frankly it has zero real and true frame of reference for how bad historically that 1 in 2 number is.

  7. #157
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You'll note that I do not put that as my lean. I am conservative in many areas as I'm going to bet you could say you are also. I wish the current policies favored business. The current policies (and for quite a number of years) have favored Wall Street. What is good for one is not necessarily good for the other.

    The QE programs have hurt the lower classes a lot. Attacking the dollar (which is what the QE programs do) makes nearly everything more expensive and as we have seen with no correlating benefit for the lower classes. Their income is not keeping up.
    Few of us are actually entirely liberal or entirely conservative. yes, I hold some conservative beliefs. I think this is actually the case with many.

    I would suggest there are many reasons income isn't keeping pace. CEO's have seen their income increase much more than the working person, and too often with worker blessing (or so it would seem). Sure, Walstreet is also close to poltiicans, but no more so than business, especially big business. The mistaken belief by the voting populace that if we appease them, they will stay here is simply false. There is not enough we can give them to make up for the low wages and lack of need for benefits that they can have overseas.

    Again, I see very little government can realisitcally do without changing the role of government in this country.



    Again, favoring business in a general term is not the problem. There is a difference. I'll give an example. An imperfect one as it generalizes but the basis is there. Let's say we cut taxes for businesses. They can in turn lower costs or not raise costs. They can invest in the company. They can pocket the money for a rainy day. None which are bad things.

    Now lets say we lower taxes for a financial institute. What they will do is take this money and put it into the market driving up prices. Yes, they could use it to invest in a new company which they still do in part which is why I say my example is not perfect BUT we see less and less of that as opposed to simply plowing it into commodities.
    I think it is a problem even in general terms.

    But let's look at what studies actually show. Say we lower taxes for the business, and they bank it. They don't hire, they still raise prices. As you mention in the second paragraph. So, favoring them has not been helpful. I even heard of an exampel where we gave GM once in the past some millions of dollars for a job program. They took the money, and laid off 25% of their work force. Their profits looked better, but the benefit to the country, or even the business was next to nil if not a loss overall.

    Too often, it's just throwing money away. Business, espeiclaly big business has done little to nothing to warrant our appeasement. Government has been unable to influence it enough to keep the ecoonomy running smoothly.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Few of us are actually entirely liberal or entirely conservative. yes, I hold some conservative beliefs. I think this is actually the case with many.

    I would suggest there are many reasons income isn't keeping pace. CEO's have seen their income increase much more than the working person, and too often with worker blessing (or so it would seem). Sure, Walstreet is also close to poltiicans, but no more so than business, especially big business. The mistaken belief by the voting populace that if we appease them, they will stay here is simply false. There is not enough we can give them to make up for the low wages and lack of need for benefits that they can have overseas.
    We are going to get this too complicated by addressing two different problems. While there may be some overlap, monetary issues and what to do about outsourcing jobs are two different things. Outside of the financial industry I've not heard many stories about businesses in general handing out huge new salaries and bonuses.

    Again, I see very little government can realisitcally do without changing the role of government in this country.
    Feel free to expand upon that.

    I think it is a problem even in general terms.

    But let's look at what studies actually show. Say we lower taxes for the business, and they bank it. They don't hire, they still raise prices.
    Too general of a statement. Commodities are going up far faster in many cases than these other considerations. Is this a bakery? With the huge increase in wheat prices can you not see where your scenario would have to be done to remain in business? People cut back on their purchases. Business then has less reason to hire.

    As you mention in the second paragraph. So, favoring them has not been helpful. I even heard of an exampel where we gave GM once in the past some millions of dollars for a job program. They took the money, and laid off 25% of their work force. Their profits looked better, but the benefit to the country, or even the business was next to nil if not a loss overall.
    GM is a piss poor example as they have been run incompetantly for decades. Before this decade is out we will have headlines again about what is to be done about GM. But you are also talking government subsidies as opposed to tax breaks in your scenario. I am against them for businesses. If you create a tax break you are allowing someone to keep more of their own money. If you subsidize them you are creating a new welfare program.

    Too often, it's just throwing money away. Business, espeiclaly big business has done little to nothing to warrant our appeasement. Government has been unable to influence it enough to keep the ecoonomy running smoothly.
    LOL, because they can't.

  9. #159
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    We are going to get this too complicated by addressing two different problems. While there may be some overlap, monetary issues and what to do about outsourcing jobs are two different things. Outside of the financial industry I've not heard many stories about businesses in general handing out huge new salaries and bonuses.
    Here are some of the year's big winners:

    1. William R. Johnson, Chairman and President, H.J. Heinz. Bonus: $8,589,063, up 17.6 percent.

    Top CEO Bonuses of 2010: Heinz, Oracle, Cisco, Nike and Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp. - ABC News

    2011 Executive PayWatch



    Feel free to expand upon that.
    China controls their economy. To have more control, we would have to be more like China. Not sure we want that.


    Too general of a statement. Commodities are going up far faster in many cases than these other considerations. Is this a bakery? With the huge increase in wheat prices can you not see where your scenario would have to be done to remain in business? People cut back on their purchases. Business then has less reason to hire.
    We've linked before what business does with tax cuts.

    Summation:

    Although we would expect tax cuts to bolster the economy, empirical evidence shows that they typically don't. Tax cuts to the rich are more likely to promote investment bubbles than job creation. Tax incentives to corporations frequently promote job destroying choices, or simply become handouts to the executives and the investors.
    why tax cuts don't create jobs

    Florida has the fifth lowest corporate income tax rate in the country at 5.5 percent, trailing only South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming and Nevada — states hardly in Florida's league. Yet Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average. Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.

    It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.

    Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times

    I usually just give the first two or three, but tohers have been posted. What can be done, and what is done are two different things.



    GM is a piss poor example as they have been run incompetantly for decades. Before this decade is out we will have headlines again about what is to be done about GM. But you are also talking government subsidies as opposed to tax breaks in your scenario. I am against them for businesses. If you create a tax break you are allowing someone to keep more of their own money. If you subsidize them you are creating a new welfare program.
    They are that,. but not uncommon as to what is done with our appeasment of business.

    And while I agree with you that one may be worse than the other, we curently do both. And when you lower their taxes, which largely doesn't amount to enough to actually make a major difference even if used, you have to have some evidence that they actually hire people. That evidence doesn't really exist. The evidence is all over the board, and u=suggests that other factors, not taxes, play a far larger role.

    LOL, because they can't.
    That's right. Without taking control, government can do very little. And I suspect neither one of us wants the government taking control.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    I have put in 12 hour shifts and seen plenty of people work longer. I have no problem believing that. That guy is getting paid. Thats not quite the same as walking (unpaid) for 8-10 hours a day to work an 8 hour shift.
    Yea, it's bull**** man. If you average 5mph which is a brisk walk, it would take 5 hours each way. 10 hours of walking, plus 8 working (assuming no lunch break) would leave only 6 hours to sleep.

    Sorry, I'm calling bull**** on this.

Page 16 of 70 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... 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
  •