• 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!

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

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WASHINGTON (AP) — Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax reduction, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far. He said some people described as poor live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

http://news.yahoo.com/census-shows-1-2-people-poor-low-income-054325860.html

To me I find this to be shocking. In my opinion, I would think the right is primarily to blame, for catering to the wealthy.

As they say, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
 
where is the real wake?

What do you mean? I saw you were talking about this earlier, and then when I was checking my emails I saw this story and was like, "what the heck, 1 in 2?"

There is no "real" Wake. People's ideologies change over time.
 
We need to change the definitions until the numbers look better.
 
Squeezed by rising living costs

Do you realize why costs are rising?

I don't have the details on every, single factor. I wouldn't mind hearing your version, though.
 
The government working with MSM, which is for all intents and purposes, a branch of the the federal government - and has been so for more than 15 years - has not yet declared the current economic crisis a depression, although it is.

Off the top of my head people I know who have been out of work for quiet a while now:

Newspaper reporter
advertising copywriter
videographers (4)
More IT people than I can count
electrical engineer
telecommunications (3)
real estate salesman
teachers (3)
headhunter
hearing aid dispenser
small business owner (5)

This is just off the top of my head, people I know personally who cannot find work. I know many more, we all do. The bull**** that the unemployed are lazy shows how far off the make some GOP politicos are. We are in a depression. Obama doesn't have the leadership ability or the man balls get this nation back on its feet. Ron Paul, maybe, I don't know.
 
I don't have the details on every, single factor. I wouldn't mind hearing your version, though.

Much of it is the government monetary policy.
 
The bull**** that the unemployed are lazy shows how far off the make some GOP politicos are. We are in a depression. Obama doesn't have the leadership ability or the man balls get this nation back on its feet. Ron Paul, maybe, I don't know.
The data from the bls support the idea that this is something different than Americans being lazy.

Pre-2000, when most people found a new job in a matter of weeks and when only 1% or so took longer than a year to find a job, the position that the chronically un-employed were not trying hard enough or were too picky held more merit.

This is not the only area where the political discourse has failed to keep up with reality, imho.
 
I find this statement kind of galling:

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far. He said some people described as poor live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

Being poor in America, you have little security. Having a car, a roof and a TV (as if they're rare or expensive) is hardly representative of your ability to afford health insurance or provide for yourself or your family in old age. We live in a consumer society filled with cheap electronics. The working poor have ample access to Wiis, as they are affordable. Health insurance, however ...
 
Strange how it's so concentrated in the blue states.
 
I find this statement kind of galling:



Being poor in America, you have little security. Having a car, a roof and a TV (as if they're rare or expensive) is hardly representative of your ability to afford health insurance or provide for yourself or your family in old age. We live in a consumer society filled with cheap electronics. The working poor have ample access to Wiis, as they are affordable. Health insurance, however ...

In another time, people didn't spend their money on such frivilous things when other needs were more pressing.

Such is the nature of entitlement, which liberals play to for votes election after election.
 
Rector isn't what anyone would call an unbiased voice of reason. Nor would anyone call him needy. He likely never was. I don't know, but from what little I can determine he may have been born into wealth and privilege. No matter, I'd like to see is data on poor people and wide screen televisions. I'd venture to say that many people who file for bankruptcy and lose their homes probably keep their largest TV.
 
In another time, people didn't spend their money on such frivilous things when other needs were more pressing.

Such is the nature of entitlement, which liberals play to for votes election after election.

Possibly, but more often, as we see, people didn't have more pressing needs at the time they bought wide screen televisions. I have a good friend who is an electrical engineer who was doing well until they shipped his job to India. He has been scrambling at part-time work every since. Over the last 2 years, he has lost most of what he owned. I can give you more examples if you like. But the point is I think your perspective is myopic and fairly uninformed.
 
Sure, it is better to be poor in the US than in some places. Not sure why some see that as a bad thing. And I can get a wide screen TV much easier than I can get health care or any number of important things.

Still, given the choice, people would choose wealth over poverty. Not sure why some want to minimalize those in need. Nor do I accept the government is to blame.
 
Boo, I like your point.

Is it better to be poor in America, or wealthy in (pick your poison).
 
In another time, people didn't spend their money on such frivilous things when other needs were more pressing.

Such is the nature of entitlement, which liberals play to for votes election after election.

What a ridiculous caricature. A roof and a car are luxuries by medeivel standards, sure. But I couldn't maintain my job without my car, and there are no jobs within walking distance. It's one of the barriers of entry in our society, and I'd wager that transportation and housing are the two biggest costs for any middle-income or lower-income family. These are the minimums that people struggle to maintain, not markers of excess as that quote paints them.

A TV is a luxury, sure, but it's a one-time expense that doesn't even reach the cost of one month of medical coverage for a family. I've known a poor family who saved up and purchased an LCD TV as a family Christmas present. They were on Section 8 housing. I never thought for a second that it was inappropriate for them to do so, and, to me, their need for housing subsidies were obvious -- the family was run by a single mother who worked tirelessly for her two children and who would have never made it without cheap child care provided by a family member and rent help. Their lives were not extravagant, but they did have an apartment, a car and a TV. Shame on them, right?
 
Sure, it is better to be poor in the US than in some places. Not sure why some see that as a bad thing. And I can get a wide screen TV much easier than I can get health care or any number of important things.

Still, given the choice, people would choose wealth over poverty. Not sure why some want to minimalize those in need. Nor do I accept the government is to blame.

"To blame"? Is to blame also.
 
"To blame"? Is to blame also.

I'm saying government has little control of a lot of things. They have helped the wealthy more than the middle class, and that has it's problems. We would all be better off if government and business wasn't so joined at the hip. But I wouldn't single out one party for that, as both are to blame, and rather equally.

So, I would not argue you can fix this problem by electing either party.
 
I'm saying government has little control of a lot of things. They have helped the wealthy more than the middle class, and that has it's problems. We would all be better off if government and business wasn't so joined at the hip. But I wouldn't single out one party for that, as both are to blame, and rather equally.

So, I would not argue you can fix this problem by electing either party.

This is a different arguement. That both parties are largely the same and that both have large groups willing to defend one over the other is not the governments fault, it's ours.
 
Last edited:
This is a different arguement. That both parties are largely the same and that both have large groups willing to defend one over the other is not the governments fault, it's ours.

Didn't we vote for these guys?

Over all, the things that effect the economy is outside the government. We do have a problme with government and business being too closely linked. A problem with policy favoring business. But we also have a problem with business being short sighted, seeking cheap labor overseas, and not leading the world as much as we did in manufacturing.

So, I'm saying ultimately we need act for us and not blame mere politicans. ;)
 
Didn't we vote for these guys?

Over all, the things that effect the economy is outside the government.

This is simply an excuse for the government. The governments monetary policy has been nothing but bad for the lower classes.

We do have a problme with government and business being too closely linked. A problem with policy favoring business. But we also have a problem with business being short sighted, seeking cheap labor overseas, and not leading the world as much as we did in manufacturing.

So, I'm saying ultimately we need act for us and not blame mere politicans. ;)

Obama promised to address the jobs going overseas. He's done absolutely nothing about it.
 
Obama promised to address the jobs going overseas. He's done absolutely nothing about it.

What was he supposed to do? What could he have done that would have satisfied you?
 
What was he supposed to do? What could he have done that would have satisfied you?

He laid out what he would do and it was one of the few things I agreed with him on and had hoped he would do. Go research his campaign promises.
 
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income - Yahoo! News

To me I find this to be shocking. In my opinion, I would think the right is primarily to blame, for catering to the wealthy.

As they say, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

This is why almost there is the shocking statistic where almost half of Americans pay no federal income tax. You can't pay taxes when you don't have ****! What can you squeeze out of nothing?

Meanwhile, the rich are complaining because they pay the biggest share of income tax, yet income inequality is shown to be as high as ever (meaning they are making more money than ever compared to the rest of the citizens) and their effective tax rates are as low as ever.

So the the top 1% are making ass loads of cash and paying less than before, yet still complain about the direction the country is headed in (see TurtleDude if you want proof of this attitude). It's ****ing insane, and you can't make this kind of **** up.

He laid out what he would do and it was one of the few things I agreed with him on and had hoped he would do. Go research his campaign promises.

One of the biggest ways he can create domestic jobs is through building new infrastructure and upgrading old infrastructure - republicans will not allow this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom