Nearly 36 Million Americans Living in Poverty

[Zebo]

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.

Welfare is not to bring people out of poverty, it is an "anti-starvation" measure. The benefits given to actually quite miniscule about all its good for is to take the hard edge off destitution. If we were seious about it we could slow the poverty rate, but it would require government getting serious about these people and give them the same attention they give to lobbiests for thier wares and government enabling.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
So we see the symptoms, but not the cause of the malady. Any ideas for a cause?

Because the market is flawed in it's current form. All a market is is a product of the legal, social and economic infrastructure built by humans and enforced by government to accomplish certain allegely beneficial objectives for humans. The market today is set up in a such a way as to drive low skilled and even medium skilled wages below subsistence while protecting and enableing the biggest corps and donars.

The solution is full employment at decent wages. Do this by public works at a fraction of the price not halburton/bechtel at outragous prices. Subsidize daycare, education, etc. You can't have "personal responsbility," "self-reliance" or any of those other nifty slogans on a below-subsistence income. Either the government is going to make up the difference, or your friends and family are, take your pick.

But I don't believe in welfare. It's a trap for the people involved.. Produce = get help.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You can't have "personal responsbility," "self-reliance" or any of those other nifty slogans on a below-subsistence income.

and you can't convince me that in this society, as it is today, anyone working full time isn't living at substance.

 

[Ryan]

We're at the poverty rates that we had in 1997/1998 - big deal, this news has been blown out of proportion.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You can't have "personal responsbility," "self-reliance" or any of those other nifty slogans on a below-subsistence income.

and you can't convince me that in this society, as it is today, anyone working full time isn't living at substance.

Really? How about the people unemployeed which is infinity below subsistence? There is a concept, I don't know if it's a fact but a guy won a nobel prize for it so it must be good, called the "natural rate of employment" that says some frictional and structural unmployment must exist. In these united states it's estimated at 6% by dept of labor. These "stuctural" folks don't even count in the people who got discouraged and stopped looking, stopped being counted.

Now let's get to the fulll time job. $5 and hour x 40 x 4.33 weeks= $866 - 7.5% FICA/Mediciad= $801.50 a month. You can't even get an apartment for that in many places let alone pay utilities, food, clothing or for schooling to improve your odds. Then where do you find the time? part time I guess. Throw a couple children in the mix and good luck.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Really? How about the people unemployeed which is infinity below subsistence?

increasing the cost of employing people is the exact opposite of what we need to fix that problem.

Let me edit my previous statement though:

and you can't convince me that in this society, as it is today, anyone working full time isn't living at substance.

I can?t say that, honestly, as many people are homeless in san-Francisco and still live homeless. But I can honestly say that anyone who wants a job can find a job and do so in a place with a cost of living that minimum wage and government help is enough to take care of a family, even if it?s a 30k a year downgrade in pay.

Don?t believe me? I know a chicken packing plant in Arkansas that you can get 1000 a month working at.
Don?t believe me? I know a satellite tech-support service that you can get 7.5 an hour working at.
I have no doubt that plenty of jobs exist, it?s simply willing ness to live off of the government instead of relocate and work that creates any unemployment we have.
Don't believe me? honestly be willing to take any job, in a place with a low cost-of-living, and I?ll bet anything you live better than living completely off of the government in the inner city.

In these united states it's estimated at 6% by dept of labor. These "structural" folks don't even count

you are simply wrong. Structural, frictional, and cyclical unemployment all add to the unemployment rate.

But natural unemployment isn?t something to be fought, because it simply means that people are on their way to a job, but haven?t gotten their yet, so they count as un employed.

The muddling of discouraged workers *people who give-up looking for work* with the naturally unemployed *people who are generally un employed for short terms* is simply inaccurate.

Surely when people give up looking for work, but they don?t start living as homeless in the street *as almost none do* then they still have something to subsist on.

Throw a couple children in the mix and good luck.

that?s low enough to get government housing for $40, electricity for $20, and a phone for free, not to mention food stamps and the like.

But I?m living in the socialist republic of Texas so I don?t know how those conservative states do things.

We're at the poverty rates that we had in 1997/1998 - big deal, this news has been blown out of proportion

but Kerry says that it's the great depression!

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, LMK, being a coke fiend gets expensive- been there, a long time ago...

And I think it's good that low income folks trying to do better get some assistance. Tell us, where would your family be w/o it?

I'll tale exception to this statement, not because of what you said, but because of what you didn't-

"I?m sorry, but I?d LOVE to know what this ?poverty? is you speak of, because I don?t need you to take what the ?rich? have rightfully earned to help me out any more than I?ve already got."

You've forgotten that 1/3 of all non-SS Federal spending is debt- the largesse you family is currently receiving hasn't actually been paid for, at all...

And you have a strange definition of "earned"- What exactly did the Walton heirs, for example, do to earn their places among the 10 wealthiest americans, other than being members of the lucky sperm club?

 

[Train]

has anyone pointed out that these 1.3 million people may not even be poor? They are just poor in the eyes of the government. how many people do you know that dont report income? well, drug dealers for one, and I've known a lot of them. Auto mechanics who work out of thier 2 car garage, make up to $1k a week but its all cash, why bother report it? (or just report enought to keep the IRA from raising an eyebrow, but still low enough to not pay taxes) I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people under the so called "poverty line" are getting by just fine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice move, train- apologism and obfuscation achieved thru pure speculation and innuendo.

 

[piasabird]

Since I only make about $30,000 a year I probably am not even mainstream middle class.

But I make more money now because of the Bush Tax Cut.

Ya Gottal Love it!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

And you have a strange definition of "earned"- What exactly did the Walton heirs, for example, do to earn their places among the 10 wealthiest americans, other than being members of the lucky sperm club?

The question is what did Sam Walton do to have all he worked for his entire life stolen by the government?

They are ?lucky? or he worked towards their betterment. Maybe being their as a family was enough to drive him to success, or maybe a man has a right to build his castle as high as he wants then give it to whom ever he wants.

I?m not angry that I save money going to wal-mart or that the Walton family did well, but you seem bitter that others and their families earned more than you and your family? why is that?

Nice move, train- apologism and obfuscation achieved thru pure speculation and innuendo

no, I see it all the time. My mother who brought us up to 18k a year didn?t declare but the optimal for earned income tax credit. Only those in the middleclass who receive a pay checks truly carry the burdens of society.

Do you hate rich people for getting there, or do you hate that they are valued more than you? Do you think that an intellectual elitist oligarchy in which we vest the power to say who deserves what wealth in society is somehow superior to having avenues to and familial rewards for becoming rich?

The end fact is we have enough money coming to us here at the bottom rungs of society, that true reforms of the system would help those of us down here do better is ignored and it seems that some would rather just steal more money from the middle class. Or was that only the top 2%... you know, the one?s who would have other wise invested that money in a manner that could cause higher employment among the rest of us?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice move, train- apologism and obfuscation achieved thru pure speculation and innuendo.

riiight, tell me you never met anyone that gets paid "under the table"

and where did I apologize for anything?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice move, train- apologism and obfuscation achieved thru pure speculation and innuendo.

Sad to see. Another one for the Elitist column

 

[RabidMongoose]

What is the criteria for living in poverty?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Since I only make about $30,000 a year I probably am not even mainstream middle class.

But I make more money now because of the Bush Tax Cut.

Ya Gottal Love it!

Can you specifically quantify a huge windfall making this so called Tax Cut for you??? I don't think so.

Sounds like you're trying keep up with the Jones with Sanfords Salary. Do you really want to be in the Elitist column well under at least $100,000??? and most agree the Rich classification doesn't start until $200,000.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I?m in the lower % of the impoverished in America, ~ 12k a year for a family of 7.

I eat steak twice a month, I eat lobster.
We have 5 computers, all of which have 21in monitors, and can play doom3.
We have digital cable, HBO and Stars, and a cable modem *with router*.
We?ve got 2 people going to collage.
We eat out for breakfast and lunch every other day, and supper at least twice a week.

I?m sorry, but I?d LOVE to know what this ?poverty? is you speak of, because I don?t need you to take what the ?rich? have rightfully earned to help me out any more than I?ve already got.

Who did you rob to get that stuff?

I don't believe a word of it.

No kidding.

I just live in a place with a low cost of living, and have gotten what the government will give the poor in Texas: housing, education, food.

Although about two years ago my mom wasn't in collage, but rather was a waitress, so we had ~ 18k a year, but then my parents where also free-base coke addicts... so that kind of balances out now that we don't spend money on that expense, what with Christianity being considerably less expensive than coke. *no, we don't give 10% nor do we attend church*

5 computers with 21 inch monitors that are good enough for doom3?
digital cable and pay channels?
cable modem with router?
you go out to eat breakfast and lunch every other day?
dinner twice a weak?

I make ten times your family's pay and I don't have all that stuff. You say you could afford it thanks to Texas's welfare program (housing, food, education)? Well, I guess you're right about people taking advantage of the system. You speak from personal experience. I knew quite a few people on welfare when I was younger but none of them abused the system as much as you. Maybe, you could start the reform of the american welfare system by not abusing it yourself. You talk about repsonsibility but don't show it. I came from a familty that qualified for food stamps, but we knew we didn't REALLY need it. So we didn't take it.

I'm glad your basic needs were met and you had the opportunity for a good education but the rest is a crime. Your abuse of the system, takes resources that could be applied to those that are still in need.

 

[Todd33]

I pay far more in federal taxes than he makes a year, yet I only have two computers

 

[Train]

jesus how many spelling mistakes can we make in one thread?

its COLLEGE not COLLAGE

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Get Real, CycloWizard. Were any of these shells in usable condition? Did anybody in the Iraqi military even know they existed? Didn't think so... Which makes the whole claim one of outright distortion... We need to remember that all of Iraq has been part of a war zone- in the Iran-Iraq war, GW1, the ongoing punitive bombing campaign for 12 years, and then the mis-named operation Iraqi freedom... Things get lost, misplaced, buried, forgotten.

Go pump sunshine up somebody else's skirt, OK?

And you might try sticking to the topic at hand... which has nothing to do with WMD's...

So, uhh, who were you last time, before you were banned?

I've not been banned, nor do I see why I would be here. I didn't take this off topic, I just followed it in that direction. If you knew anything about chemicals, you'd know that mixing certain chemicals gives a reaction, which is exactly what these shells are meant to do, so yes they work. If you had some of these in your possession, I daresay you'd keep pretty close tabs on them, because dropping one could kill your family. In any case, you're dodging the issue that we've found WMD in Iraq.

The solution is full employment at decent wages. Do this by public works at a fraction of the price not halburton/bechtel at outragous prices. Subsidize daycare, education, etc. You can't have "personal responsbility," "self-reliance" or any of those other nifty slogans on a below-subsistence income. Either the government is going to make up the difference, or your friends and family are, take your pick.

Government jobs aren't what they used to be, back in the day when people needed them to get out of poverty. Now people take government jobs to get paid for doing nothing (not in all cases, but in a good many). Once you're in the government, you never get out unless you want to: it's virtually impossible to be fired. As bad as big businesses are, they're still preferable to the government simply because they have slightly less bureaucracy and have more accountability. The time big businesses get into trouble is when government dollars are given to them, because they get way more than they need. The only solution I can give is that people need to become less reliant on the government to support them in general, but I don't see this happening. It'll probably go further the other direction. /ramble

Just to clear up the definition of poverty:

The Federal poverty level for an individual is $8,980 in 2003. The net income test for help under this provision is income of less than 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, ($22,450). Joe Green `s gross annual earnings are $42,765. After the SSI earned income exclusions, he meets the net income test for Medicaid and is eligible under this provision, as follows:
$42,765.00 - annual earnings divided by 12 = $3,563.75

3,563.75 - monthly earnings

-85.00 - general and earned income exclusion

3,478.75

-1,739.37 - exclusion of half remaining earned income

$ 1,739.37 - monthly countable income of $20,872 a year

In this example, Mr. Green`s net income of $20,872 is below $22,450 limit for an individual.

Source: http://www.ssa.gov/work/ResourcesToolkit/Health/newbuyin.html
And that's for an individual. Wow, that actually pisses me off. That means an individual who makes $50,000 a year (reduces to ~$42 after deductions) could get Medicaid and other benefits. WOW.

 

[Todd33]

States can extend Medicaid coverage to certain disabled people who work. Under Section 4733 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, States have the option to provide Medicaid to working people with disabilities whose earnings are too high for them to qualify for Medicaid under existing rules.

Nice crop job Hannity.. uh CycloWizard. That is for disabled persons. I'm sure there are million of disabled people milking the system for Medicaid, lol.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, LMK, as I said, and as you've basically acknowledged, many with huge incomes didn't earn them at all, they got lucky. And that's not to say that I feel they shouldn't have them, not at all, but let's be honest about it, OK? They're not "earned" in any normal sense of the word... to claim that they are is extremely misleading. To claim that taxcuts for the elite creates jobs is also misleading- if if did, then the last 20 years of it would have enriched somebody other than the elite, which it hasn't...

And, uhh, you seem to want to avoid the whole issue of deficits, and the illusion created by them... I'm not arguing that social programs are inadequate, but that the funding for them and for a lot of other stuff is derived from a house of cards... Also that the current economic trend is clearly towards overall lower paying jobs, while the thrust of the Right's argument as to how to balance the budget is to cut entitlements. The numbers say we need more money for entitlements, if we're to hold the increasing # of families such as your own at a non-squalor level, and that we need to find a way to actually pay for it... And also that educational opportunities don't really matter to kids whose early childhood malnutrition diminishes their mental capacity...

And, Train, your whole "maybe they're all cheaters" argument is an apologism for the numbers, and for the policies that got us here, whether you realize it or not... a blithe method of dismissal, similar to the usual Limbaugh argument...

And I'm forced to disagree with Dave- $200K isn't rich, at all, just upper middle class, folks who are well off. They still depend on their paychecks as much as the rest of us. They do have the means, in general, to weather adversity better than the average family. If you want to define wealthy in safe terms, that would be the upper 1/3 of 1% or so, the place where this graph goes vertical. That's also where the total % of income paid in taxes actually begins to drop, too...

http://www.lcurve.org/

 

[Vic]

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.

You mean "from" the private sector.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice obfuscation, CycloWizard-

"If you knew anything about chemicals, you'd know that mixing certain chemicals gives a reaction, which is exactly what these shells are meant to do, so yes they work. If you had some of these in your possession, I daresay you'd keep pretty close tabs on them, because dropping one could kill your family. In any case, you're dodging the issue that we've found WMD in Iraq."

So, uhh, you're alleging that these moldering old shells, found buried in the dirt for God knows how long, can actually be loaded into a howitzer and delivered on target with the desired effect? And that the Iraqis actually knew where they were? Malarkey. They "were" chemical weapons at some time in the past- today, they're a toxic waste discovery, nothing more...

It's the uber-right Bush Fanbois who keep claiming that these finds somehow justify the claims of hundreds of tons immediately deliverable on American targets. It's called moving the goalposts- this time, apparently, it's OK for them to actually become imaginary- all the Bush Admin had to do was nudge the ball with their foot for guys like you to call it a goal...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Nice crop job Hannity.. uh CycloWizard. That is for disabled persons. I'm sure there are million of disabled people milking the system for Medicaid, lol.

So I can't read or write... What's your point? In any case, even a disabled person making $50k a year should not be eligible for benefits. No one making $50k a year should be getting government benefits, short of having 20+ kids.

 

[Todd33]

That's your opinion. Maybe you can write the Republican Congress or the Republican President and make them change the rules. I suspect there are people who get assitance who don't need it and some who need it that don't get it.