• 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

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

2011-10-17-obama_immelt.jpg
 
whysoserious said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be where my daughter falls. She bought a house and a new car this year.
 
Boo Radley said:
And you're for policies that favor them? I'll need your conservative card now. ;)
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

LOL, because they can't.
 
1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That's right. Without taking control, government can do very little. And I suspect neither one of us wants the government taking control.
 
muciti said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...

Scratch Heinz off my shopping list.

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

I'm not sure we have anyone in D.C. capable of that.

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
Click to expand...

I noted the problem with simply putting more money into the markets. It's why I support raising Capital Gains tax to be equal with income tax. In this case I'd even be good with it being higher. Put it in the markets and pay 30% rate or put it into the business and pay 18% rate. (or nothing)

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.
Click to expand...

I'm also good with the arguement of lowering taxes so that the government has less to throw around. Seems to me that South Dakota's unemployment rate is pretty low right now which would mean that there are many influences on unemployment.

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
Click to expand...

New Yorks rate is 7.9%. South Dakota's is 4.5%. Illinois is over 10%. Wyomings is 5.8%. Seems Florida is an anomoly

They are that,. but not uncommon as to what is done with our appeasment of business.
Click to expand...

GM was done to pay back the unions.

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.
Click to expand...

You do not have to have evidence of anything to allow people to keep more of their money.
 
1Perry said:
I noted the problem with simply putting more money into the markets. It's why I support raising Capital Gains tax to be equal with income tax. In this case I'd even be good with it being higher. Put it in the markets and pay 30% rate or put it into the business and pay 18% rate. (or nothing)
Click to expand...



I'm also good with the arguement of lowering taxes so that the government has less to throw around. Seems to me that South Dakota's unemployment rate is pretty low right now which would mean that there are many influences on unemployment.
Click to expand...




New Yorks rate is 7.9%. South Dakota's is 4.5%. Illinois is over 10%. Wyomings is 5.8%. Seems Florida is an anomoly
Click to expand...

Nope. We've seen this over and over again. As I said, I just post the first two or three, but I've posted more before.

GM was done to pay back the unions.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.

You do not have to have evidence of anything to allow people to keep more of their money.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're asking here. What I do have and have posted not only today but in the past is that tax cuts have not produced jobs.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. We've seen this over and over again. As I said, I just post the first two or three, but I've posted more before.
Click to expand...

My numbers are wrong?

I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

Remember that when GM is back in the news.

Not sure what you're asking here. What I do have and have posted not only today but in the past is that tax cuts have not produced jobs.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a question. People do not have to prove they are going to do acceptable things in your eyes to keep the money they earned.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The cost of food is rising. It's the speculators!

The cost of energy is rising. It's the speculators!
Click to expand...

Your right it is the SPECULATORS and WALL Street Hedge Funds. Wall Street enables the rich to steal from the poor and middle class not just money but also jobs




The Celestial Navigator - "Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profi

"Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks. The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley’s “Brave New World” to Orwell’s “1984.” The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. We increasingly live in Orwell’s Oceania, not Huxley’s World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in “1984.” And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified. The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning—who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime—mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.” The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless." -- Chris Hedges
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
It does make one wonder why they supposedly passed High School, yet are so ill informed as to how wealth redistribution doesn't work, and never has.

j-mac
Click to expand...

as long as they can smoke dope, wife swap, boy swap etc, they aren't going to care.
 
Imo, part of the reason why we're in a depression is because the prices of everything from rent, mortgages, vehicles, utilities, phones, all food, clothing, etc. have skyrocketed while the wages have pretty much stayed the same. If wages rose as much as our living expenses did we wouldn't be having the problems we do now. And then we have politicians who seek ways to take our money and put it into pet projects/agendas that don't always turn out to be winners, but more like turds, for the general populace, but lines their pockets with bright shiny gold, so to speak. If they weren't profitting so well in more ways than one from being a politican, we'd sure as hell have trouble getting anyone to run for office.
 
whysoserious said:
What does this even mean, TurtleDude?
Click to expand...

I know a fair amount of party hounds who support the dems because they basically live libertine lifestyles. They are aging potheads who sometimes are swingers who despise the religious right and the sanctimony they think the religious right directs their way. Same is true with more than a few Ivy educated Yuppies. They vote Dem because they see the GOP as the party of either Bible Thumpers or their over-controlling parents. They react against being judged or told how to live more than being over taxed
 
TurtleDude said:
I know a fair amount of party hounds who support the dems because they basically live libertine lifestyles. They are aging potheads who sometimes are swingers who despise the religious right and the sanctimony they think the religious right directs their way. Same is true with more than a few Ivy educated Yuppies. They vote Dem because they see the GOP as the party of either Bible Thumpers or their over-controlling parents. They react against being judged or told how to live more than being over taxed
Click to expand...

You don't think that works both ways? Or are you really saying that they vote democrat because of something that is inherently wrong with them?
 
whysoserious said:
You don't think that works both ways? Or are you really saying that they vote democrat because of something that is inherently wrong with them?
Click to expand...

I was merely telling you why so many tech yuppies and aging cocaine cowboys (ie the sort of people who run places like Yahoo) vote dem despite being wealthy
 
TurtleDude said:
I was merely telling you why so many tech yuppies and aging cocaine cowboys (ie the sort of people who run places like Yahoo) vote dem despite being wealthy
Click to expand...

Again, your mind reading skills are awesome to behold. It's always good for a laugh when conservatives wax eloquent about what liberals really think.
 
AdamT said:
Again, your mind reading skills are awesome to behold. It's always good for a laugh when conservatives wax eloquent about what liberals really think.
Click to expand...

many liberals say one thing when they believe others

example

dem leaders say the support gun bans to stop crime when in reality their goal is to harass gun owners for supporting the GOP

or dem leaders saying American is unfair to the poor when these rich dems are trying to buy the poor's votes so the dem leaders get more wealth and power.

I guess you expect me to believe that the reason why rich party hounds vote dem is because they think that the best way to help the poor is through welfare socialism?

Later
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom