• 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: U.S. Poverty Rate Spikes, Nearly 50 Million Americans Affected

Boo Radley said:
Oh, true case and effect are difficult, but if you read this is exactly what I've been saying. There's a study in polls forum. Or look up Stanford study on gap between rich and poor. I like thank because the focus is on the effect on education. But it covers this as well.
Click to expand...

Which does not make an income gap meaningful in and of itself. Not sure why that's so hard to get.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The new normal has arrived. "Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more" - by the band Ten Years After from their song "I'd love to change the world".
Click to expand...
Give the wealthy some credit, most are ingenious enough to withstain a tax hike of 4%, after all, many accumulated their wealth during periods where taxation was far harsher and punitive.
 
Harshaw said:
An increasing gap does not necessarily indicate decreased purchasing power of anyone.

Which is why, in and of itself, the gap is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Decreased in gross terms? No, but it does indicate a greater disparity in the distribution of wealth, which certainly can lead to adverse results.

The phrase itself isn't particularly meaningful, but the figures that lie behind the claim certainly are. A full decade in which median income declined, coupled with higher poverty rates certainly prolong recessionary periods and inhibit growth on a broad scale.
 
H. Lee White said:
OK... so what?
There no increase in poverty, and so people are not being made poor to finance the increase in anyone's wealth.
So... your complaint here doesnt have anyhting to do with the poor, but some unfounded idea that some people having 'more' is not a good thing - and, by extension, that the government needs to do something about it.
Click to expand...

No. A country with a weak middle class, with mostly haves and have nots, has more than a few problems. Remember how important the illusion that all can be rich is to our system. History is full of examples of what happens when the divide gets too large.

So, it is about poverty, but not just a number, and not in a vacuum. Like most things, more than a few factors play a role in any one thing, one thing usually also effects more than one thing. The gap, as it grows, has such an effect. And your seeing some of it in the fake class warfare. There is a breeding of discontent that will likely not be good for this country on the whole.

But that discussion requires a lot more than I am willing to tackle at this place and time. The smaller point here is that for a long time we've favored the wealthy, cut services as we cut their taxes, and then blamed those who fell to the lower side of the gap. We lose people for the tax base. We don't have what he had to move them back. And part of why is the misplaced belief that what the wealthy did for so long, and once willingly as part of civic duty because the understood they too benefit by a healthy middle class..

Sure there are other issues. A shrinking world. Out sourcing. technology. But, this gap is also a large part of the problem.
 
Harshaw said:
Which does not make an income gap meaningful in and of itself. Not sure why that's so hard to get.
Click to expand...

Again, in and of itself are your words, which I think have very little meaning. You saying an and of itself(as nothing is in and of itself) doesn't make anyone go, "we'll damn, it's not a problem then."
 
a351 said:
Give the wealthy some credit, most are ingenious enough to withstain a tax hike of 4%, after all, many accumulated their wealth during periods where taxation was far harsher and punitive.
Click to expand...

For that matter so is everybody else, the economy was wonderful under Clinton's tax rates. After all, it was the "Bush" tax rates that Obama blames for many of his economic ills. If revenue, rather than "social justice", is what Obama truely wants then that is all the more reason to allow ALL of the tax rates to return to the "pre-Bush" levels. What Obama really dreads is any talk of returning to the Clinton federal spending level of 19% of GDP, or even the Bush federal spending level of 20% of GDP because Obama, while keeping federal spending at 24% of GDP (yep 20% more that that of Bush), assures us that we have a federal revenue problem.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If revenue, rather than "social justice", is what Obama truely wants then that is all the more reason to allow ALL of the tax rates to return to the "pre-Bush" levels. What Obama really dreads is any talk of returning to the Clinton federal spending level of 19% of GDP.
Click to expand...
Some realize that Clinton era tax and spending rates while both viable and non prohibitive under a specific set of economic circumstances, could prove to hamper consumer activity and would potentially send us hurdling towards yet another recession given our current state. Too many attempt to seek out a one size fits all approach to taxation and spending regardless of circumstances in the current day and age, whether it be conservatives mired in the Reagan era or liberals daydreaming about the Clinton age.
 
a351 said:
Some realize that Clinton era tax and spending rates while both viable and non prohibitive under a specific set of economic circumstances, could prove to hamper consumer activity and would potentially send us hurdling towards yet another recession given our current state. Too many attempt to seek out a one size fits all approach to taxation and spending regardless of circumstances in the current day and age, whether it be conservatives mired in the Reagan era or liberals daydreaming about the Clinton age.
Click to expand...

You offer a sort of chicken and egg argument there. Was the economy good under Clinton because of the federal gov't taxation/spending ratios (nearly balanced) or in spite of them? Obama has repeatedly said that the Bush taxation was bad news for the economy and contibuted heavily to the federal deficit, yet rather than raise taxes Obama reduced them and added 20% more federal spending as well. You can not have it both ways - you either borrow and spend or raise taxes to pay for the spending. Clearly running over $1 trillion in annual federal deficts is neither working nor sustainable, it is simply kicking the can down the road and hoping for change.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You offer a sort of chicken and egg argument there. Was the economy good under Clinton because of the federal gov't taxation/spending ratios (nearly balanced) or in spite of them?

Obama has repeatedly said that the Bush taxation was bad news for the economy and contibuted heavily to the federal deficit

yet rather than raise taxes Obama reduced them and added 20% more federal spending as well.

You can not have it both ways - you either borrow and spend or raise taxes to pay for the spending.
Click to expand...
Well, the tax rates at the time certainly didn't inhibit growth, and the revenue that stemmed from said tax rates were certainly put towards fruitful causes, so I'm afraid this is a question I can't answer in black and white terms earnestly either.

And it did, just about every economist of said time period will insist that the lessening of tax rates across the board, despite the potential to stockpile a nice amount of wealth away for a rainy day and invest in some important domestic ventures, was a hasty and shortsighted move.

Different scenarios entirely, Obama entered office with a tanking economy, which made hiking up taxes on consumers an absolute boneheaded proposition at the time. Also remember that those on the other side of the aisle weren't and still aren't compliant with any strategy that would even hint at doing so.

Well, deficits don't have to be serviced entirely in the near and now, they can be offset and serviced in future years by a nice mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes, when deemed appropriate and responsible. Again with the binary reasoning.
 
a351 said:
Decreased in gross terms? No, but it does indicate a greater disparity in the distribution of wealth, which certainly can lead to adverse results.
Click to expand...

Not by itself. My problem is with people (such as Boo) who say "income gap!!!!!" as though the gap itself is a self-evident problem. It's not.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, in and of itself are your words, which I think have very little meaning. You saying an and of itself(as nothing is in and of itself) doesn't make anyone go, "we'll damn, it's not a problem then."
Click to expand...

:shrug: You're the one who repeatedly presents the income gap as a problem all by itself, and call it a debate-ender. Sorry, but it's not, your weird diversion into tax policy notwithstanding.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The new normal has arrived. "Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more" - by the band Ten Years After from their song "I'd love to change the world".

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama's presidency - Washington Times
Click to expand...

That was the plan in the first place. Obama and progressives want individuals to be government reliant because it gives progressives the power to do anything they want. If people want to eat they will have to support and adhere to the progressive ideology.

In the progressive mind - the United States utopia is government playing the role of "mommy and daddy" and the rest of us are children and we need to do was we're told, and that is exactly the environment they're setting up here.... Progressives have never wanted individualism or self reliance - they don't believe in those ideas.

The progressive goal is to dictate outcomes - outcomes which will ensure they hold power by making sure everyone depends on them for survival.
 
Why are so surprised at the level of poverty in the USA?

TOP 400 inome earners in the USA take home over 300 million dollars EACH every year - and pay abotu 18% tax

So the Plutocratic class in the USA has increased its asset and income wealth, even over the recent Global Financial Crisis.

The USA may well be the richest single nation on the planet (note: US debt is also the highest), but it certainly has a welath distribution problem.

USA spends about $8000 per capita each year on Health care (more than double the next OECD nation) and yet its corporately run health scam system is ranked 47th in the world

he fascist corporate US tyranny is great for a select few at the top - f*c* the rest - I wonder what Christ would say if you walked the city streets of America today?
 
Grim17 said:
More data that confirms Obama's first term was fantastic... Funny how this comes out just after the election.




Census: U.S. Poverty Rate Spikes, Nearly 50 Million Americans Affected « CBS DC
Click to expand...

Of course these numbers were known before the election however our partisan MSM just had to hold them back for a couple weeks.

I think it's funny how progressives actually believe Obama gives a rats ass about them yet here he is knowing how much of a failure his policies are yet he runs for reelection???

If that tool really did care about people he would have never ran for a second term..... No that clown likes playing a real life version of the Sims.
 
Klown said:
Why are so surprised at the level of poverty in the USA?

TOP 400 inome earners in the USA take home over 300 million dollars EACH every year - and pay abotu 18% tax

So the Plutocratic class in the USA has increased its asset and income wealth, even over the recent Global Financial Crisis.

The USA may well be the richest single nation on the planet (note: US debt is also the highest), but it certainly has a welath distribution problem.

USA spends about $8000 per capita each year on Health care (more than double the next OECD nation) and yet its corporately run health scam system is ranked 47th in the world

he fascist corporate US tyranny is great for a select few at the top - f*c* the rest - I wonder what Christ would say if you walked the city streets of America today?
Click to expand...

You do realize there isn't a set amount of wealth in this nation?? Or to explain it in 3rd grade logic to you - our economy is not like a bag of M&M's split between the school bully and the nerd, were some get 15 and others get 3 - our economy is like an M&M factory, we can produce as many as we want, just as long as we know how to produce them and produce them with our own individual energy.

Wealth is not finite it is infinite. So I really don't see how the wealthy have any effect on your life.

Hell, you're stealing from the wealthy - they owe you nothing.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You do realize there isn't a set amount of wealth in this nation?? Or to explain it in 3rd grade logic to you - our economy is not like a bag of M&M's split between the school bully and the nerd, were some get 15 and others get 3 - our economy is like an M&M factory, we can produce as many as we want, just as long as we know how to produce them and produce them with our own individual energy.

Wealth is not finite it is infinite. So I really don't see how the wealthy have any effect on your life.

Hell, you're stealing from the wealthy - they owe you nothing.
Click to expand...

lol

almost fell of my chair

(the next thing Mr Nick will be saying is that the US is a free democracy and its economic system is a free market capitalist system - obviously Mr Nick is a stand up comedian)
 
Last edited:
Klown said:
Why are so surprised at the level of poverty in the USA?

TOP 400 inome earners in the USA take home over 300 million dollars EACH every year - and pay abotu 18% tax

So the Plutocratic class in the USA has increased its asset and income wealth, even over the recent Global Financial Crisis.

The USA may well be the richest single nation on the planet (note: US debt is also the highest), but it certainly has a welath distribution problem.

USA spends about $8000 per capita each year on Health care (more than double the next OECD nation) and yet its corporately run health scam system is ranked 47th in the world

he fascist corporate US tyranny is great for a select few at the top - f*c* the rest - I wonder what Christ would say if you walked the city streets of America today?
Click to expand...

So your "plan" to end poverty is to tax the top 400 people enough to pay for supporting the bottom 40,000,000? Who needs a job (or the education to get one) if the gov't will just give you the benefits of a job without all of that darned effort? USA, USA, USA...
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: You're the one who repeatedly presents the income gap as a problem all by itself, and call it a debate-ender. Sorry, but it's not, your weird diversion into tax policy notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

You're reading in too much. I've never used those words. Never.

However, it is a factor and a large one.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're mistaken. And trying to skip the point by putting up a strawman.
Click to expand...

If it's a strawman, then it's your own words which make it one. :shrug: You said what you said.
 
Harshaw said:
If it's a strawman, then it's your own words which make it one. :shrug: You said what you said.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I never used those words. In fact in many posts I've noted other factors as well. And you have yet address the point. I'm willing to bet you never will.
 
Is any of it related to the global economic downturn thingy I have been hearing about for all these recent years?
 
MaggieD said:
I don't buy that. I just think that a larger % of Americans have decided it makes more sense to take a long vacation than to go out a get a job. (Sorry.)
Click to expand...
data are your friends

People are looking harder now than they have in years.


unemployed_jobs_quit_chart1.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom