• 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!

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

My understanding is that the program the president is proposing is for those on unemployment specifically. That doesn't cover every or even most of those in poverty. I also never said I don't support such a program.

I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, where do you the increased numbers on poverty come from? Could it be the previously employed, or people that can only find minimum wage jobs? Get the connection?

As posted before, here is the breakdown of people living in poverty at the date of the study:

"90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."
 
Last edited:
Your credibility may actually rise a tiny bit, once you decide who actually grew the BIGGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY. :roll:

Oversaw, American, oversaw.

Bardos statement doesn't make sense at all without that key qualifier.
 
I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, where do you the increased numbers on poverty come from? Could it be the previously employed, or people that can only find minimum wage jobs? Get the connection?

As posted before, here is the breakdown of people living in poverty at the date of the study:

"90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."

I get the point on the recession increasing poverty. My point was that poverty existed prior to and will exist after the recession ends. Your repetition of the question doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I have. Repeatedly. You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the recession we wouldn't have poverty. You know that's false. We've seen 3-4% on average in increased poverty since the recession began. So if we see a 3-4% decrease when the recession ends we'll still have 12-13% poverty. Are you getting this at all? Here, in bullet points:

1. Poverty existed before the recession.
2. Povery was not decreasing prior to the recession.
3. Low unemployment does not eliminate poverty.
4. We will still have poverty when the recession ends.
5. Creating jobs won't solve even half of the poverty cases we have. It would, presumably, solve about 25%, given the pre-recession and recession numbers.
6. That must mean there are other reasons we continue to see stagnate or growing poverty numbers.
7. I've mentioned those reasons several, several times. Any every one of those reasons is agreed upon by most researchers and easily accessible through a simple google search.
8. None of the misinterpretations, clarifications, or attempts to bait answers you think I'm avoiding giving will take away from the fact that my initial post was correct.
 
I get the point on the recession increasing poverty. My point was that poverty existed prior to and will exist after the recession ends. Your repetition of the question doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I have. Repeatedly. You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the recession we wouldn't have poverty. You know that's false. We've seen 3-4% on average in increased poverty since the recession began. So if we see a 3-4% decrease when the recession ends we'll still have 12-13% poverty. Are you getting this at all?

Yes I am getting it, that's why I posted the breakdown of those in poverty before the recession: ""90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."


Here, in bullet points:

1. Poverty existed before the recession.
2. Povery was not decreasing prior to the recession.
3. Low unemployment does not eliminate poverty.
4. We will still have poverty when the recession ends.
5. Creating jobs won't solve even half of the poverty cases we have. It would, presumably, solve about 25%, given the pre-recession and recession numbers.
6. That must mean there are other reasons we continue to see stagnate or growing poverty numbers.
7. I've mentioned those reasons several, several times. Any every one of those reasons is agreed upon by most researchers and easily accessible through a simple google search.
8. None of the misinterpretations, clarifications, or attempts to bait answers you think I'm avoiding giving will take away from the fact that my initial post was correct.

The 400 top wage earners own more of the country's wealth than 50% of the people in this country. Now, what if we paid a living wage for full time work? What do you think that would do for the poverty numbers?
 
So why doesn't Obama address the issue above instead of lumping folks who make $250K into the debate!

Good cop, bad cop? Honestly I don't know why this obviously low number is used.

Except to "tie" the income of hard working small business owners with hedge fund managers. To put the former on the same "team" as the latter?
 
Yes I am getting it, that's why I posted the breakdown of those in poverty before the recession: ""90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities."




The 400 top wage earners own more of the country's wealth than 50% of the people in this country. Now, what if we paid a living wage for full time work? What do you think that would do for the poverty numbers?

Minimum wage at 40 hours is above poverty for a single person. And why are we talking about the top 400 wage earners? Here's a shocker: I don't care how much wealth they (or anybody else) earns, as long as they are earning it. I want people in poverty to succeed. I do not believe for one second that we need to target "rich people" to make that happen. I think we can have a discussion about solving poverty without demanding the heads of the rich on platters. I think we can have a dicussion about solving poverty without turning it into a "conservatives hate the poor", "rich hate the poor", "rich people keep people poor" bull****.
 
Good cop, bad cop? Honestly I don't know why this obviously low number is used.

Except to "tie" the income of hard working small business owners with hedge fund managers. To put the former on the same "team" as the latter?


All the recent proposals I have seen use the millionaire threshold. I think the lower $250,000 threshold has been dropped from consideration.
 
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.

I don't really have any problem with these sorts of plans.

They will be great IF there are jobs available for them when they complete training. If not, they end up cut off with the bad ultimate consequences like homelessness and starvation.

There is a job shortage in this country right now. Simply telling the poor to "get a job" in this environment is not realistic when there aren't enough jobs to be had for those who ALREADY have the training.

I understand this is not what you are doing, its just a factor I think is important to keep in mind.
 
I don't really have any problem with these sorts of plans.

They will be great IF there are jobs available for them when they complete training. If not, they end up cut off with the bad ultimate consequences like homelessness and starvation.

There is a job shortage in this country right now. Simply telling the poor to "get a job" in this environment is not realistic when there aren't enough jobs to be had for those who ALREADY have the training.

I understand this is not what you are doing, its just a factor I think is important to keep in mind.

My initital thought was to make the training/education programs geared towards "recession proof" or "in demand" fields. Things like HVAC, medicine, plumbing, insurance, etc. Then I figured there'd be too much kick-back from people because I'm "limiting their choices" or something.
 
This will be the last response from me, because this isn't the first time you've absolutely miscontrued my statements and accused me of saying/believing things I don't believe. Debating with you is pointless, so it won't happen again.

I accept your concession, but reject your false accusations. I haven't "miscontrued" anything. Rather, I have taken your opinions to their full conclusion.

I didn't discuss time limits in the sense that I think we should have one specifically.

Sure. So you argued for time limits, but you don't think should be any? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I didn't say that the entitlements CAUSE poverty. I said they don't FIX poverty.

Right, so you don't believe that people who receive entitlements have less incentive to pull themselves out of poverty, but instead, it maintains the "status quo." Let's not mince words here.

I listed several common causes of poverty.

Yes, children, a lack of education, and low skill level. At least two of those "causes" have already been addressed. And debunked. I explained why there is increased poverty. I explained why the economy cannot recover without jobs.

I indicated my plan in this thread. I've also indicated it in several other threads. Also, on IRC.

The only "plan" you mentioned in this thread has already been addressed. Whatever you have posted in other threads is not relevant here.

I don't have a jobs plan,

Ah, well there you go. You don't have a plan to create jobs. I see no reason to debate you further, either. You've basically told me that you have no plan. Well done.

and I clearly included the fact that poverty was not declining prior to the recession, indicating that even without high unemployment, we still have poverty, which means not having available jobs is only a small part of the overall problem.

BS. Jobs are the biggest factor regarding poverty. It's basic economics 101. Without jobs, people don't have money. Therefore, they are in poverty. Without decent wages, even those with employment will still see a decline in their standard of living. Once again, this is basic. It's laughable to claim that a lack of employment is "only a small part of the [] problem.

You most CERTAINLY made this an issue of rich v. poor.

Nonsense. I stated facts. then, I provided links.

That wasn't hyperbole, that was metaphor.

:neutral:

There were no "obvious generalizations". There were facts.

Your opinions most certainly aren't facts.

You misinterpreted facts and you're flat out wrong. Sorry.
I never said we should stop giving any aid to people who need it. Ever. Like seriously, never. You won't find it anywhere on this board.

The qualifier here is "people who need it." You go on to claim that poverty needs to be redefined. Why? So less people can receive aid?


So there, that's it. Maybe next time instead of making stupid accusations and attacking something that I didn't do you'll actually do the research into what I've said...or, better yet, ask. Then again, I won't be responding to you moving forward, so just go ahead and keep being 100% wrong. That's fine.

That's your choice. But if you think you're 100% correct, it is you who is mistaken.
 
Minimum wage at 40 hours is above poverty for a single person.

Just barely. Did you notice that from the figures above, 31 percent of those in poverty have family responsibilities.

"For a single parent with one child, however, the official poverty line was $14,291, and for a single parent with two children, it was $16,705. So anyone trying to support even the smallest of families on a single minimum-wage job would qualify as poor."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/minimum-wage-workers-and-poverty/


And why are we talking about the top 400 wage earners? Here's a shocker: I don't care how much wealth they (or anybody else) earns, as long as they are earning it.

Here's a shocker for you: You pay higher taxes for welfare because we do not require the top income earners, who's wealth is increasing, to pay a living wage to their workers.


I want people in poverty to succeed. I do not believe for one second that we need to target "rich people" to make that happen.

You would rather it come our of your taxes for welfare then, as is our current system?

I think we can have a discussion about solving poverty without demanding the heads of the rich on platters. I think we can have a dicussion about solving poverty without turning it into a "conservatives hate the poor", "rich hate the poor", "rich people keep people poor" bull****.

How does eliminating the temporary tax cuts which amount to a few percentage points equate to demanding the heads of the rich on platters?
 
Last edited:
i'm not sure what you want doesn't already exist. there are many, many education and jobs skills programs for the disadvantaged. in fact, these types of programs were part of welfare reform. and in many cases, these programs ARE mandatory. what's happening now is that despite record profits, companies are not hiring. they are sitting on their cash, giving outrageous bonuses to ceos while letting the wages of the masses stagnate. that's why providing incentives to these compaines for creating jobs is a good thing.

Things will get "better" when America's working class adapts to the second world standard of living that business is willing to provide as a percentage of GDP.

American workers are going to have to accept that businesses competing in a global economy are simply not going to give up the percentage of what they produce to which they have grown accustomed.

When starving people in the billions are desperate to not DIE, our first world standard of living is cannot be sustained and allow profits to be harvested at a rate that renders American businesses "competitive".
 
I get the point on the recession increasing poverty. My point was that poverty existed prior to and will exist after the recession ends. Your repetition of the question doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I have. Repeatedly. You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the recession we wouldn't have poverty. You know that's false. We've seen 3-4% on average in increased poverty since the recession began. So if we see a 3-4% decrease when the recession ends we'll still have 12-13% poverty. Are you getting this at all? Here, in bullet points:

1. Poverty existed before the recession.
2. Povery was not decreasing prior to the recession.
3. Low unemployment does not eliminate poverty.
4. We will still have poverty when the recession ends.
5. Creating jobs won't solve even half of the poverty cases we have. It would, presumably, solve about 25%, given the pre-recession and recession numbers.
6. That must mean there are other reasons we continue to see stagnate or growing poverty numbers.
7. I've mentioned those reasons several, several times. Any every one of those reasons is agreed upon by most researchers and easily accessible through a simple google search.
8. None of the misinterpretations, clarifications, or attempts to bait answers you think I'm avoiding giving will take away from the fact that my initial post was correct.

You are attacking a strawman. I have not heard anyone make the argument that any sort/combination of policies will absolutely eliminate poverty. Don's post pretty much sums up the "way" you should be thinking about poverty.

Sustained robust economic growth reduces poverty. Rapidly growing East Asian economies, not to mention Brazil and India, offer good illustrations. On the flip side, stagnant or sluggishly growing economies typically result in an increase in the incidence of poverty on account of high unemployment (which cuts off people from incomes), little or no real income growth, and, in a potential long-term aspect, foregone competitiveness (such economies lead to efforts at "quick fixes" that ignore structural realities and result in foregone investment).

From the available data, we can observe that poverty as a whole was at its relative minimum following the the dot.com craze. The growth realized after the turn of the century was certainly not "sustainable" by any stretch of the imagination. I am not sure exactly what it is you are trying to argue.
 
Minimum wage at 40 hours is above poverty for a single person. And why are we talking about the top 400 wage earners? Here's a shocker: I don't care how much wealth they (or anybody else) earns, as long as they are earning it. I want people in poverty to succeed. I do not believe for one second that we need to target "rich people" to make that happen. I think we can have a discussion about solving poverty without demanding the heads of the rich on platters. I think we can have a dicussion about solving poverty without turning it into a "conservatives hate the poor", "rich hate the poor", "rich people keep people poor" bull****.

I don't think conservatives hate the poor, I think conservatives don't understand the poor. This may not hold true for everyone, but most of the conservatives I've seen are completely unwilling to blame poverty on anything except poor choices by the poor person in question. Well, sometimes that's the case. More often, though, poverty is a result of people getting screwed by the system, which conservatives are absolutely unwilling to acknowledge. And even if you can dig up a bad decision somewhere that may have contributed to poverty, should we really demand that everyone be absolutely perfect in order to succeed? Occasionally, people make mistakes. It happens. Should their lives be totally ****ed because of that? Most poor people would eagerly work themselves out of poverty, given only the opportunity.
 
Apparently they're doing it wrong, because poverty prior to the recession was not on the decline.

Yes and no.

They require job seeking here in CA, but full time minimum wage positions are rare, even as entry level. So they end up in part time positions that don't pay the bills, far too often. Because they have two years to get a JOB. A "living" isn't part of the equation.

Seriously, there isn't enough money to provide all Americans with an"adequate" living AND allow American businesses to remain competitive on the global playing field, where they are competing with those whose workforces are fighting to put basic nutrition on the table, and are therefore HAPPY to have a job that allows them to eat every day.

No amount of tax cuts or deregulation are going to offset labor cost differentials.

Only a reduction in the overall American standard of living is going to do this, so this is what is happening. The American Dream is being downsized.

Its the only way American businesses can remain competitive.

I sure hope the potential "prize" is worth the sacrifice its requiring.
 
I don't know. It's not worth the effort IMO.

See? Now that's the problem I have with your posts.

X said it, I believe it, that settles it.

"I know its not raining, I will NOT open a window to find out for sure. There's no point."

I would be willing to bet "highly welfare dependent" means "deriving most or all of their living from welfare during their adult lives". That's what semantics would suggest.

Do studies use selective language to lend support to their claims? Of course.

Is this a universal practise? No.

Would you accept the kind of dismissal you gave on a subject you support? I doubt it.

But its a free country, so carry on.
 
All the recent proposals I have seen use the millionaire threshold. I think the lower $250,000 threshold has been dropped from consideration.

That's better. And I think jobs with unnaturally short lifespans, like professional athletes, might deserve a little leeway, or random windfalls in certain cases.

The $250k number always made me go "Hmmm?".
 
My initital thought was to make the training/education programs geared towards "recession proof" or "in demand" fields. Things like HVAC, medicine, plumbing, insurance, etc. Then I figured there'd be too much kick-back from people because I'm "limiting their choices" or something.

Yeah, tread lightly. "Planned economies" decide who does what job.

But obviously training as a buggy whip maker would be pretty useless.
 
Things will get "better" when America's working class adapts to the second world standard of living that business is willing to provide as a percentage of GDP.

American workers are going to have to accept that businesses competing in a global economy are simply not going to give up the percentage of what they produce to which they have grown accustomed.

When starving people in the billions are desperate to not DIE, our first world standard of living is cannot be sustained and allow profits to be harvested at a rate that renders American businesses "competitive".

Then how do you account for the success of Germany's economy. They have a highly paid workforce and their economy is growing faster than ours.
 
See? Now that's the problem I have with your posts.

X said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Well that part is most generally true but I provide all sort of links to what I claim. What we had here is something not even worth the effort. How exactly do you look up a
highly welfare dependant. WTF does that even mean? It's not a government classification.

Two long-term studies, for example, found that about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves became highly welfare dependent, with the rest showing only light welfare use or none at all.

This is a proper way to present a study? Basically as far as that statement goes we could assume that out of 5 mothers who were "highly welfare dependant" all 5 had daughters that ended up on welfare, or maybe a few didn't. Did the other 4 show welfare use or not?

Seriously, I'm suppose to take this seriously?
 
Well that part is most generally true but I provide all sort of links to what I claim. What we had here is something not even worth the effort. How exactly do you look up a
highly welfare dependant. WTF does that even mean? It's not a government classification.

Two long-term studies, for example, found that about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves became highly welfare dependent, with the rest showing only light welfare use or none at all.

This is a proper way to present a study? Basically as far as that statement goes we could assume that out of 5 mothers who were "highly welfare dependant" all 5 had daughters that ended up on welfare, or maybe a few didn't. Did the other 4 show welfare use or not?

Seriously, I'm suppose to take this seriously?

Would the top quartile of welfare dependency suffice? Do i have to now define top quartile? You are arguing semantics.
 
Then how do you account for the success of Germany's economy. They have a highly paid workforce and their economy is growing faster than ours.

I honestly don't know. A poorer PR campaign that "Greed is Good!" perhaps?
 
I honestly don't know. A poorer PR campaign that "Greed is Good!" perhaps?

I think you will find that German business leaders to be no less greedy than their US counterparts. You might find that the German public is willing to pay a premium for german made product, perhaps it is the public that is less greedy?? Or perhaps the German worker has a reputation for producing superior product. Ever look at what we in the US are willing to pay for their cars.

You will need to get past sloganeering if you want real answers to real problems.
 
I think you will find that German business leaders to be no less greedy than their US counterparts. You might find that the German public is willing to pay a premium for german made product, perhaps it is the public that is less greedy?? Or perhaps the German worker has a reputation for producing superior product. Ever look at what we in the US are willing to pay for their cars.

You will need to get past sloganeering if you want real answers to real problems.

We pay a lot more for their cars than they do!
 
I think you will find that German business leaders to be no less greedy than their US counterparts. You might find that the German public is willing to pay a premium for german made product, perhaps it is the public that is less greedy?? Or perhaps the German worker has a reputation for producing superior product. Ever look at what we in the US are willing to pay for their cars.

On a relative basis, Germany imports nearly 3 times as much as the United States (much of which is attributable to their lack of natural resources).

Source: Divide imports by real GDP
 
Back
Top Bottom