• 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

H. Lee White said:
So you DO blame The Obama, at least in part for the increase in poverty.


Which programs designed to help the poor lift themsleve sor of poverty, have been cut since the 2001 tax cuts?
Click to expand...

I actually blame us as voters, and the courts who helped keep the connection between money and politics.

And you have to back further than 2001. This has been a long process. Right now it is no longer about which president or party, as both and all share responsibility. It is about the wrong head ideology that has been moving it this way.

Now I know you seek a Yes, it's Obama's fault as an answer. but that is too simplistic and as such a lie. Put him on the list with everyone else, but at the end of the day it has been this notion of tax cuts again and again that has led us down this path.
 
Boo Radley said:
I actually blame us as voters, and the courts who helped keep the connection between money and politics.
And you have to back further than 2001. This has been a long process.
Click to expand...
Not according to the poverty rates - they've been going up and down within a narrow range for decades, depending mostly on the economy.
You, however, attribute the current spike in poverty to tax cuts and the resulting cuts in programs to help the poor help themselves.
So, for your argument to stick, you have to specify which of said programs were cut, and were cut because of the tax cuts.
 
H. Lee White said:
Not according to the poverty rates - they've been going up and down within a narrow range for decades, depending mostly on the economy.
You, however, attribute the current spike in poverty to tax cuts and the resulting cuts in programs to help the poor help themselves.
So, for your argument to stick, you have to specify which of said programs were cut, and were cut because of the tax cuts.
Click to expand...

The gap has been growing. Where you define poverty may be an issue. And it has been growing for a long time. And no, I don't attribute it to what has happen just lately, but to a long term change in Ideology.

I linked a study up the polls section where this was first discussed.
 
Boo Radley said:
The gap has been growing.
Click to expand...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html
Aveage since 1970 is 13.1%. with a standard deviation of 1.2%.
Highest 5 years:
2011........ 15.0
1982........ 15.0
2010........ 15.1
1993........ 15.1
1983........ 15.2
Lowest 5 year:
1973........ 11.1
1974......... 11.2
2000......... 11.3
1978........ 11.4
1977........ 11.6
Middle 5 years:
1989........ 12.8
1988........ 13.0
1980........ 13.0
2008........ 13.2
1997........ 13.3

Looks to me like the poverty rate has remained pretty steady, fluctuting within a narroe range depending on the economy.

Where you define poverty may be an issue.
Click to expand...
As the federal governmeent defines it. if your defintion differers, then there's the issue.

And it has been growing for a long time.
Click to expand...
Not according to the historical poverty rates.

And no, I don't attribute it to what has happen just lately, but to a long term change in Ideology.
Click to expand...
1970 - 2011... what change is that?

Further, and again:
You, attribute the --current-- spike in poverty to tax cuts and the resulting cuts in programs to help the poor help themselves.
So, for your argument to stick, you have to specify which of said programs were cut, and were cut because of the tax cuts.
 
Ah, the infamous "gap between the rich and the poor," as though that in and of itself is meaningful, much less the debate-ender some seem to think it is.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged.
 
H. Lee White said:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau
Aveage since 1970 is 13.1%. with a standard deviation of 1.2%.
Highest 5 years:
2011........ 15.0
1982........ 15.0
2010........ 15.1
1993........ 15.1
1983........ 15.2
Lowest 5 year:
1973........ 11.1
1974......... 11.2
2000......... 11.3
1978........ 11.4
1977........ 11.6
Middle 5 years:
1989........ 12.8
1988........ 13.0
1980........ 13.0
2008........ 13.2
1997........ 13.3

Looks to me like the poverty rate has remained pretty steady, fluctuting within a narroe range depending on the economy.


As the federal governmeent defines it. if your defintion differers, then there's the issue.


Not according to the historical poverty rates.


1970 - 2011... what change is that?

Further, and again:
You, attribute the --current-- spike in poverty to tax cuts and the resulting cuts in programs to help the poor help themselves.
So, for your argument to stick, you have to specify which of said programs were cut, and were cut because of the tax cuts.
Click to expand...

If your numbers were all they were to it, then should happy as all get out. But you know as well as I such is not the case. What we're talking about is the gap between wealth and poverty. I pointed you to other thread. I'd link it here but I haven't quite master the iPad yet. Still, read closer what I'm saying and visit that other thread.
 
Harshaw said:
Ah, the infamous "gap between the rich and the poor," as though that in and of itself is meaningful, much less the debate-ender some seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

It actually is, and why there is some 47% not paying income taxes.
 
Boo Radley said:
It actually is, and why there is some 47% not paying income taxes.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. "Income gap" means nothing by itself.

(Nor does it require that anyone not pay taxes.)
 
"maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of white house, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign--a white house that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate." -- barack obama, the audacity of hope, 2006.
Click to expand...

bwaaaa haaa haaa haaaaa!
 
Harshaw said:
No, it's not. "Income gap" means nothing by itself.

(Nor does it require that anyone not pay taxes.)
Click to expand...

You use of the phrase "in and of itself" is a curious one. I suspect you seeking a way to avoid the point. The gap is a problem. I've stated but one way how. Any response?
 
Boo Radley said:
You use of the phrase "in and of itself" is a curious one. I suspect you seeking a way to avoid the point. The gap is a problem. I've stated but one way how. Any response?
Click to expand...

No, it's not a way to avoid anything. It's pointing out that merely saying "there's an income gap!" doesn't actually say anything.

Your "one way how" is what you said about taxes? That's not a problem with an income gap. It's a problem with a stupid tax structure, a structure which is no way required by the income gap.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it's not a way to avoid anything. It's pointing out that merely saying "there's an income gap!" doesn't actually say anything.

Your "one way how" is what you said about taxes? That's not a problem with an income gap. It's a problem with a stupid tax structure, a structure which is no way required by the income gap.
Click to expand...

No. When we had less of a gap, more we making enough to pay taxes. The base was larger.
 
Harshaw said:
That is no response to what I said.
Click to expand...

It is. Yes, our system has a place where you play less taxes. When we're doing we'll, with a strong middle lass, more people are income brackets that pay taxes. Kind of silly to want the poor to pay, who are already struggling. And when we understood this, and tax rates were higher, that gap was smaller. As we're accepted the cut tax doctrine that have wealthy paying less and less, that gap has grown and base shrank.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is. Yes, our system has a place where you play less taxes. When we're doing we'll, with a strong middle lass, more people are income brackets that pay taxes. Kind of silly to want the poor to pay, who are already struggling. And when we understood this, and tax rates were higher, that gap was smaller. As we're accepted the cut tax doctrine that have wealthy paying less and less, that gap has grown and base shrank.
Click to expand...

You're yammering about something entirely different now, not to mention confusing correlation with causality.
 
Harshaw said:
You're yammering about something entirely different now, not to mention confusing correlation with causality.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
030810-jolts.jpg
 
Harshaw said:
Ah, the infamous "gap between the rich and the poor," as though that in and of itself is meaningful.
Click to expand...
Well, it is quite meaningful, and quite relevant given our current situation. The decreased purchasing power of the lower and mid tier wage earners undoubtedly deepens and prolongs recessions.
 
Fisher said:
People who buy into that "But for Obama it would have been worse" argument get what they deserve.
Click to expand...
Most adults should earnestly attempt to avoid wishing ill upon fellow Americans because of political preferences.
 
a351 said:
Most adults should earnestly attempt to avoid wishing ill upon fellow Americans because of political preferences.
Click to expand...

Have no pity for people who do not see the economic writing on the wall. Sorry. I pay my own bills and ask nobody to do it for me.
 
Boo Radley said:
If your numbers were all they were to it, then should happy as all get out. But you know as well as I such is not the case. What we're talking about is the gap between wealth and poverty. I pointed you to other thread
Click to expand...
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.
 
a351 said:
Well, it is quite meaningful, and quite relevant given our current situation. The decreased purchasing power of the lower and mid tier wage earners undoubtedly deepens and prolongs recessions.
Click to expand...

An increasing gap does not necessarily indicate decreased purchasing power of anyone.

Which is why, in and of itself, the gap is meaningless.
 
On 60 Minutes, a segment about 3 MILLION jobs nation wide going unfilled, factory jobs! but, not the old type factory job where you can walk in off the street and be trained to put nut A on bolt B a few thousand times a day. You have to be able to do basic algebra and some trig...run some sophisticated milling machines without losing a finger or 2, and even show up on time every day. After 16 weeks of concentrated training, one company in NV hired a bunch at $12 per hour with benefits, with top pay eventually being over $50K per year, once they get more training and experience.
One employer was asked why they didn't train people more, the business owner said, we are a factory, not a school, teaching is not our core competency, and if we have to train people from the ground up, we can't compete as well....or words to that effect...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom