Nearly 36 Million Americans Living in Poverty

[Todd33]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some 1.3 million Americans slid into poverty in 2003 despite the economic recovery, and children and blacks were worse off than most, the government said on Thursday in a report certain to fuel Democratic criticism of President Bush.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent in 2002, the Census Bureau said in its annual poverty report, seen by some as the most important score card on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office. The ranks of the poor rose to 35.9 million, a boost of 1.3 million.

Health care coverage also dropped last year and incomes were essentially stagnant, the Census Bureau said in its annual poverty report, seen by some as the most important score card on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6079297

Well, at lest the mega rich got tax cuts. We live in a country where we spend over $400B, more than 10x more than any other country on the military, yet we can't provide for our own people. I'm glad the Iraqis are getting universal health care though.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm glad the Iraqis are getting universal health care though.

Those socialist bastards!

 

[rextilleon]

Unfortunately, most of them dont vote---can you imagine if all the people who Bush has economically destroyed or sent to die in a contrived war voted? Read today that Bush had creeped ahead in the polls--

 

[Orsorum]

So we see the symptoms, but not the cause of the malady. Any ideas for a cause?

 

[rextilleon]

I think there isn't one cause--multiple causes---Of course you can include the de-industrialization of America, the present exportation of jobs to India etc, the attempt by the right wing to arrest more control for the private sector.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
I think there isn't one cause--multiple causes---Of course you can include the de-industrialization of America, the present exportation of jobs to India etc, the attempt by the right wing to arrest more control for the private sector.

It's the Rights fault if those who break the law are arrested? :roll:

 

[Todd33]

What law? I think you read it too fast

 

[arsbanned]

What Economic Recovery....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Todd33
What law? I think you read it too fast

DOH!!!

 

[Train]

every year more and more money is spent on welfare.

adjusted for inflation, the "War on Poverty" has cost more than WWII, yet not once has it even made a scratch in the percentage of americans below the poverty line.

 

[rextilleon]

Red Dawn---slow down and read--arrest, like many words in the English language has different nuances and meanings when used in particular ways---When one arrests power, they take power from someone--When the deputy arrests someone, takes them to the police station. Why do I have to constantly explain things to right wingers--It is getting so tedious.

 

[Todd33]

I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Red Dawn---slow down and read--arrest, like many words in the English language has different nuances and meanings when used in particular ways---When one arrests power, they take power from someone--When the deputy arrests someone, takes them to the police station. Why do I have to constantly explain things to right wingers--It is getting so tedious.

Uhh...you mean "wrest", not "arrest".

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Red Dawn---slow down and read--arrest, like many words in the English language has different nuances and meanings when used in particular ways---When one arrests power, they take power from someone--When the deputy arrests someone, takes them to the police station. Why do I have to constantly explain things to right wingers--It is getting so tedious.

LOL, Right Winger. :laugh: I already acknowledged that I misread your statement in a couple of posts above. DOH!= Oops

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Red Dawn---slow down and read--arrest, like many words in the English language has different nuances and meanings when used in particular ways---When one arrests power, they take power from someone--When the deputy arrests someone, takes them to the police station. Why do I have to constantly explain things to right wingers--It is getting so tedious.

Uhh...you mean "wrest", not "arrest".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If they be like to die they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

From a thread I posted a while back:

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

From a thread I posted a while back:

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

What that means to me is that resources are spent unwisely, not that they should not be spent.

If you were an inner city kid with a poorly funded education system and by some miracle you had the basic skills to work, where would that be? You do not have the financial ability to relocate. So just get a job where you are? Businesses like to head to the malls, not North Philly.

IMO, money should be spent, and in ways that give a boost economically and educationally. Aid should be given but not without strings. One thing that would help is that all welfare recipients would never get cash. They would have a debit account and a card that would only work with certain items. Trash food- out.
Cigarettes- out.
Lottery tickets- gone.

Want the premium channels? Well, medicaid isn't going to pick up that tab.

It would take some time and money, but I think it would be worth the investment. Cheating would be harder, but if you managed it and were caught cheating, you do community service. A second offence gets you kicked off.

 

[Todd33]

I can make a similar graph with military spending and terrorist attacks, or abstinence education and pregnancy rates. I can take just about any two seemingly dependent variables and show the same trends.

The real questions are in the details. How was that money spent? How much makes it to the poor? what would the poverty rate be if we spent $0, 60%? I know conservatives like to throw over-simplifications around, but the world isn't simple.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

From a thread I posted a while back:

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

What that means to me is that resources are spent unwisely, not that they should not be spent.

If you were an inner city kid with a poorly funded education system and by some miracle you had the basic skills to work, where would that be? You do not have the financial ability to relocate. So just get a job where you are? Businesses like to head to the malls, not North Philly.

IMO, money should be spent, and in ways that give a boost economically and educationally. Aid should be given but not without strings. One thing that would help is that all welfare recipients would never get cash. They would have a debit account and a card that would only work with certain items. Trash food- out.
Cigarettes- out.
Lottery tickets- gone.

Want the premium channels? Well, medicaid isn't going to pick up that tab.

It would take some time and money, but I think it would be worth the investment. Cheating would be harder, but if you managed it and were caught cheating, you do community service. A second offence gets you kicked off.

In a dream world my friend. Do you think the liberals would let that happen? Try to put any restriction whatsoever on welfare and they will demonize you (hey wheres that guy thats shouts Elitist all day?)

Any type of legislation that requires any sort of registration, reporting, restricting, stricter requirements, etc, get slammed by the liberal community in the name of Rights, Privacy, Dignity, etc etc. makes me wonder, why are the same people who support welfare so afraid to make it a success? This is why I think politicians who support this type of welfare system are just tryig to buy votes from the poor.

Edit:

If I were to fix welfare, I'd bring back FDR's Public works administration, give anyone who wants it, a decent paying job planting trees, cleaning up the environment, bulding parks, etc.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

From a thread I posted a while back:

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

What that means to me is that resources are spent unwisely, not that they should not be spent.

If you were an inner city kid with a poorly funded education system and by some miracle you had the basic skills to work, where would that be? You do not have the financial ability to relocate. So just get a job where you are? Businesses like to head to the malls, not North Philly.

IMO, money should be spent, and in ways that give a boost economically and educationally. Aid should be given but not without strings. One thing that would help is that all welfare recipients would never get cash. They would have a debit account and a card that would only work with certain items. Trash food- out.
Cigarettes- out.
Lottery tickets- gone.

Want the premium channels? Well, medicaid isn't going to pick up that tab.

It would take some time and money, but I think it would be worth the investment. Cheating would be harder, but if you managed it and were caught cheating, you do community service. A second offence gets you kicked off.

In a dream world my friend. Do you think the liberals would let that happen? Try to put any restriction whatsoever on welfare and they will demonize you (hey wheres that guy thats shouts Elitist all day?)

Any type of legislation that requires any sort of registration, reporting, restricting, stricter requirements, etc, get slammed by the liberal community in the name of Rights, Privacy, Dignity, etc etc. makes me wonder, why are the same people who support welfare so afraid to make it a success? This is why I think politicians who support this type of welfare system are just tryig to buy votes from the poor.

Edit:

If I were to fix welfare, I'd bring back FDR's Public works administration, give anyone who wants it, a decent paying job planting trees, cleaning up the environment, bulding parks, etc.

I grew up in the inner city. I have no dream world, but I do have ideas which may have some merit.

There are those who use welfare as a bone to get votes. Some dems use that to consolidate power. Then again some reps use it to get people stirred up and make it a point to secure their position. Think about it. What if the Libs DID make a fuss? The Congress is controlled by Republicans. So is the White House. I think they believe real, effective reform would deprive them of a useful tool.

Perhaps it's time for people who can see the need for assistance who are not for shenanigans on the part of anyone to be heard.

BTW, I like the idea of the FDR style approach. THere is no shame in hard work, and if Uncle Sam uses my tax dollar to improve things, so be it.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

From a thread I posted a while back:

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

What that means to me is that resources are spent unwisely, not that they should not be spent.

If you were an inner city kid with a poorly funded education system and by some miracle you had the basic skills to work, where would that be? You do not have the financial ability to relocate. So just get a job where you are? Businesses like to head to the malls, not North Philly.

IMO, money should be spent, and in ways that give a boost economically and educationally. Aid should be given but not without strings. One thing that would help is that all welfare recipients would never get cash. They would have a debit account and a card that would only work with certain items. Trash food- out.
Cigarettes- out.
Lottery tickets- gone.

Want the premium channels? Well, medicaid isn't going to pick up that tab.

It would take some time and money, but I think it would be worth the investment. Cheating would be harder, but if you managed it and were caught cheating, you do community service. A second offence gets you kicked off.

In a dream world my friend. Do you think the liberals would let that happen? Try to put any restriction whatsoever on welfare and they will demonize you (hey wheres that guy thats shouts Elitist all day?)

Any type of legislation that requires any sort of registration, reporting, restricting, stricter requirements, etc, get slammed by the liberal community in the name of Rights, Privacy, Dignity, etc etc. makes me wonder, why are the same people who support welfare so afraid to make it a success? This is why I think politicians who support this type of welfare system are just tryig to buy votes from the poor.

Edit:

If I were to fix welfare, I'd bring back FDR's Public works administration, give anyone who wants it, a decent paying job planting trees, cleaning up the environment, bulding parks, etc.

Dude, that is completely untrue. Sure, some far left liberals might complain but the vast majority of liberals are for welfare reform that includes ways to prevent fraud. That's like me saying that republicans would never ever support a welfare program. Sure, I'd be right about the far right extremists but not the average conservative. Man, you need to learn that the farthest to the left and right also tend to be the loudest and get more attention than the moderate majority.

By the way, I'm very liberal and I would LOVE to bring back FDR's public works. I think its a fantastic idea. I think I'd probably provide daycare for single working moms though and allow time off for job interviews. However, the first time you're caught not going to a job interview and cheating the system, you'd lose your eligibility for the porgram for life.

 

[Todd33]

I just looked closely at the graph again, please explain it... it's a cumulative spending? We don't spend $450B a year on 'welfare', HHS budget is around $50B and HUD is around $40B and most of that is NOT welfare in the traditional sense.

Buy votes from the poor? Who told you that Rush? News flash, the poor have very low voter turnout. I guess the conservative line is, give all the tax money to the people and they will donate it. I'll believe that as soon as I see proof. We had tax cuts from Reagan and now Bush, is their a huge influx of charity money? People are greedy, it's the basic nature of mankind. You give people money, they will pocket it. I'd rather spend money on education and give the poor a chance at entering the workforce, else we'd better build a lot more prisons and hire a lot more police. But that may ultimate be the plan of the conservatives anyhow.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Train
every year more and more money is spent on welfare.

adjusted for inflation, the "War on Poverty" has cost more than WWII, yet not once has it even made a scratch in the percentage of americans below the poverty line.

You mean to tell me that that's all the money we've spent in all these years to fight a problem thousands of times more massive that the Hitler problem. We are truly and obviously a selfish and stupid people. Have you ever figured in what poverty, aside from welfare costs in terms of quality of life?

In a capitalist system where there are winners and competition there has to be losers.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'd like to read the provisions of the "War on Povery", where can I find the PDF?

From a thread I posted a while back:

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

What that means to me is that resources are spent unwisely, not that they should not be spent.

If you were an inner city kid with a poorly funded education system and by some miracle you had the basic skills to work, where would that be? You do not have the financial ability to relocate. So just get a job where you are? Businesses like to head to the malls, not North Philly.

IMO, money should be spent, and in ways that give a boost economically and educationally. Aid should be given but not without strings. One thing that would help is that all welfare recipients would never get cash. They would have a debit account and a card that would only work with certain items. Trash food- out.
Cigarettes- out.
Lottery tickets- gone.

Want the premium channels? Well, medicaid isn't going to pick up that tab.

It would take some time and money, but I think it would be worth the investment. Cheating would be harder, but if you managed it and were caught cheating, you do community service. A second offence gets you kicked off.

Can't disagree with any of Winston's ideas. Problem is that none of our politicians have the backbone to commit this kind of political suicide. Those on the welfare rolls will most certainly not vote away their smokes, lottery tickets, fast food, and premium channels. Instead they'll vote away their local representation who would agree to making those kinds of changes.