Nearly 36 Million Americans Living in Poverty

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
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...
http://www.lcurve.org/

Or..... We could drop the entitlements and make people EARN their keep. Oh, and if you make $200,000 a year, you're not living paycheck to paycheck.

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...

Yes, if you'd care to read any of the links I posted above. Chemical weapons precursors don't have a shelf-life (as tritium does for nuclear weapons), or else countries couldn't maintain them. One of them actually blew up and gave soldiers a reaction from *gasp* sarin gas. These aren't buried in the sand, however much you might like them to be - they're in the hands of the insurgents, which are mostly die-hard Saddam loyalists who dropped their uniforms when the shooting started and went to ground. Oh, and I don't recall anyone saying that they had hundreds of tons of anything. What would it take for you to admit that they had chemical weapons, oh he-who-speaks-of-moving-goalposts?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 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.

How the hell can you justify giving tax dollars to someone who makes $50k a year? Move to Canada already!

 

[Todd33]

I don't, then again I'm not a congressman who writes theese rules and don't know about being disabled.

How do you justify spending $200B in Iraq? Multi-billion dollar airline bailouts? Trillion dollar tax cuts? It's all relative.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I don't, then again I'm not a congressman who writes theese rules and don't know about being disabled.

How do you justify spending $200B in Iraq? Multi-billion dollar airline bailouts? Trillion dollar tax cuts? It's all relative.

That's not even a good cop out.

Here's my problem: I'm a student making $18,000 a year and I'm paying money DIRECTLY to someone making $50k a year. How does that make sense? Your post doesn't address this in any way -- how is justice done by taking my tax dollars and giving them to someone that makes almost three times as much money as I do?

 

[ToeJam13]

This news is not surprising. 12% of the population. Just amazing. Increases every year since 2000. The blame should be placed on congress. There is no plausible excuse for not rasing the minimum wage since 1997. Non at all. Every year more and more families are added to this list because the minimum wage paying jobs are not keeping up with the cost of living. Not the solution by a long shot but an obvious step in the right direction.

In a protectionist economy, increasing the minimum wage can be a short term method of increasing the standard of living for impoverished citizens. However, the United States is increasingly fighting against a globalized world, one filled with billions of cheap, unskilled laborers.

With the fall of tariffs and the rise of free trade, companies worldwide are taking advantage of this cheap labor more than ever. The result has been the loss of entry level jobs for unskilled workers. Although a majority of unskilled US workers never make it out of this low level of work, it provided a paycheck none-the-less.

The recent trend of agricultural jobs shifting to South America is just more of the same forced by our standard of living. This is just the latest blow to unskilled workers, whose ranks include those in the textile industry, manufacturing, assembly and mining.

Recently in my home state of Washington, hundreds of asparagus farmers and packers found themselves out of a job due to increased competition from Argentinean workers. Packers and sorters in the plant made over $6.50/hr while their replacements are lucky to make $6.50/day. It took a huge amount of capital to build new factories in Argentina, but the long term savings will be enormous. Those few companies that have decided to keep their packing operations in Washington State have moved to full automated systems. Again, the workers just priced themselves out of a job due to increased wages.

It would be nice if the US could move these workers up to better paying, technical jobs. However, even people in this sector are under attack from an ever increasingly skilled International labor pool that will work for a fraction of the wages of their US counterparts.

So in practical reality, every time you raise the minimum wage in this modern day, the further you force this nation?s poor to a further destitute life.

 

[Todd33]

I'm a student making $18,000 a year and I'm paying money DIRECTLY to someone making $50k a year. How does that make sense?

I doubt you pay any federal taxes at all, so none of your money goes there. How many federal grants does your school get for research? Have you ever used low interest federal loans? I bet there are some folks who would love to kill all the federal assistance you benifit from (either directly or indirectly). We both do not know the details of disability and Medicaid, so why bother debating one example?

 

[Wolfdog]

There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way that our class based society deals with the living poor. Giving them handouts should no longer be an option. There needs be some real movement which people keep more of the money that they make in the 30k and under bracket. As it stands right now there is going to be another round of massive layoffs happening soon here. They won't be in high paying sector this time. Bushes "recovery" will evaporate as the low paying service industries are next to be hit. Retail will be especially hard hit, since people have no money to spend. With the TCL skyrocketing, and wages not keeping up. The economy is set to contract. CNN had a story a few weeks ago that the inflated gas prices are leeching out 300 million a day out of the economy. Where is that money going exactly? All that really doesn't matter though as the disposible income for the working poor is almost eradicated. There seriously needs to be a 0% tax bracket for those that make under 30k a year. Since who exactly is receiving federal aid? It surely isn't the people that received the largest tax break under the current Bush regime. What people really need to understand is that a 5% tax cut creates far less disposible income for people that make less than a 1% tax cut for the rich. If Bush really wanted to improve the economy he would do what it took to keep the total cost of living low for everyone. That would be far better than any crap poor tax cuts. Of course that would mean some actual leadership coming from the whitehouse. Things like artifically keeping the price of gas and natural gas low would especially would do wonders for the economy. That would mean more money in everyones pocket, and would lead to increased consumerism. When it comes down to it there needs to be a regime change right here in the US. The current regime isn't dealing with the issues and has shifted focus off thier poor leadership to making up WMD in Iraq.

 

[Mockery]

This may be rather pessimistic, but I feel that nothing short of everyone in America being obligated to cut checks is going to resolve the issue of poverty in this nation.

Poverty has many aspects to it. While many are burdens created from a societal standpoint, the majority of which still fall directly on shoulders of the individual who actually has the problem.

A lot, as in tens of billions annually, is being committed to this problem in order to help fulfill societies commitment to this crisis, I'm not sure about how much is being done from the individual aspect (since this varies depending on the individual).

Regardless of which side of the fence you are one with this issue, there are multiple aspects to this problem that must be addressed in order to move anything forward (personal responsibility being the biggest one IMO).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33

I'm a student making $18,000 a year and I'm paying money DIRECTLY to someone making $50k a year. How does that make sense?

I doubt you pay any federal taxes at all, so none of your money goes there. How many federal grants does your school get for research? Have you ever used low interest federal loans? I bet there are some folks who would love to kill all the federal assistance you benifit from (either directly or indirectly). We both do not know the details of disability and Medicaid, so why bother debating one example?

You're still avoiding the issue. Explain to me the justice of taking money from someone that makes $18k a year and distributing it to someone making $50k a year. If you can, then I'll answer any other argument you have, but you first.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I pay far more in federal taxes than he makes a year, yet I only have two computers

your priorities are out of wack.. and you probibly don't have 7 people who all want to us computers at the same time.

And you can argue that what i have now is good all you want, i agree, i don't want less. But i don't want more.

 

[Todd33]

Explain to me the justice of taking money from someone that makes $18k a year and distributing it to someone making $50k a year. If you can, then I'll answer any other argument you have, but you first.

Did you miss the part about you not paying taxes at all? No one making 18k is contributing anything to the system. A person making 50k a year pays some taxes, you can argue he is at least getting something for his money. Again, we are talking about disabled people getting Medicaid.

Why do you expect justice in paying taxes? I pay plenty, yet I have no direct say in how it's used. Maybe I don't want to provide universal health care for Iraqis.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Todd33
I pay far more in federal taxes than he makes a year, yet I only have two computers

your priorities are out of wack.. and you probibly don't have 7 people who all want to us computers at the same time.

And you can argue that what i have now is good all you want, i agree, i don't want less. But i don't want more.

The tax payer doesn't need to be footing the bill for your 5 computers. Learn to share.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
<blockquote>quote:
<hr>Explain to me the justice of taking money from someone that makes $18k a year and distributing it to someone making $50k a year. If you can, then I'll answer any other argument you have, but you first.<hr></blockquote><BR><BR>Did you miss the part about you not paying taxes at all? No one making 18k is contributing anything to the system. A person making 50k a year pays some taxes, you can argue he is at least getting something for his money. Again, we are talking about disabled people getting Medicaid.<BR><BR>Why do you expect justice in paying taxes? I pay plenty, yet I have no direct say in how it's used. Maybe I don't want to provide universal health care for Iraqis.

Once again avoiding the issue. First and foremost, EVERYONE with income pays into social security and Medicare. EVERYONE. THIS is what the person making $50k is drawing from.

"A person making 50k a year pays some taxes, you can argue he is at least getting something for his money." That could be the single most ignorant statement I've read in recent history. Have you ever used roads, or a sidewalk even? Then you're getting something for your taxes. The problem with someone making 50k getting SS is that they're not getting their tax dollars back, they're getting everyone else's back. This is the extreme of socialism. Even someone with absolutely no fiscal responsibility can easily live off of 50k a year, yet I am subsidizing them. That's just asinine.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Todd33</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr>Explain to me the justice of taking money from someone that makes $18k a year and distributing it to someone making $50k a year. If you can, then I'll answer any other argument you have, but you first.<hr></blockquote><BR><BR>Did you miss the part about you not paying taxes at all? No one making 18k is contributing anything to the system. A person making 50k a year pays some taxes, you can argue he is at least getting something for his money. Again, we are talking about disabled people getting Medicaid.<BR><BR>Why do you expect justice in paying taxes? I pay plenty, yet I have no direct say in how it's used. Maybe I don't want to provide universal health care for Iraqis.<hr></blockquote>

Once again avoiding the issue. First and foremost, EVERYONE with income pays into social security and Medicare. EVERYONE. THIS is what the person making $50k is drawing from.

"A person making 50k a year pays some taxes, you can argue he is at least getting something for his money." That could be the single most ignorant statement I've read in recent history. Have you ever used roads, or a sidewalk even? Then you're getting something for your taxes. The problem with someone making 50k getting SS is that they're not getting their tax dollars back, they're getting everyone else's back. This is the extreme of socialism. Even someone with absolutely no fiscal responsibility can easily live off of 50k a year, yet I am subsidizing them. That's just asinine.

Actually, 50K is only the tip of the iceberg. I know someone where the family makes >120K a year but the wife gets disability. Furthermore, she hadn't worked for years when she started recieving it. There justification is they paid into the system, they should get something out of it. I think, disability should e resevered for those that make very little.

 

[Todd33]

Once again avoiding the issue. First and foremost, EVERYONE with income pays into social security and Medicare. EVERYONE. THIS is what the person making $50k is drawing from.

The problem is you and I are arguing about something we know nothing about. You oversimplify and I assume there is more to it. I was right. Your example is a buy-in program, for those who make too much but still want to stay in the program.

More info here (each state has different requirements). Did you read the title of your own link? "Medicaid Buy-In For Working People With Disabilities".

http://www.health.state.ny.us/...-in_work_disabled.htm


If you want to discuss abuse of welfare programs, you didn't really pick the right example.

That could be the single most ignorant statement I've read in recent history.

Let's not be dramatic. Someone who pays taxes and SS getting a benefit for being disabled is not "extreme socialism".

The problem with someone making 50k getting SS is that they're not getting their tax dollars back, they're getting everyone else's back.

That's how SS works in general, this surprises you? Your SS dollars also gets spent on Iraq and anything else in the general fund, are you upset?

This is the extreme of socialism. Even someone with absolutely no fiscal responsibility can easily live off of 50k a year, yet I am subsidizing them. That's just asinine.

Again, you are being dramatic. I'm not sure how many years you had to listen to your dad b!tch about welfare, your not that informed, you just seem angry at the concept. If you don't want to assist the poor, keep voting Republican. Just don't whine to me when you lose your job or need government assistance.

BTW Did you ever add up all the federal programs you benifit from directly or indirectly though you pay next to no federal income taxes?

 

[CycloWizard]

The fact that it's a buy-in program doesn't matter at all in this argument. The fact remains: someone with $50k is being subsidized for healthcare. There isn't more to it than that. Here are some relevant quotes from your source:

Will I have to pay a premium for coverage?
It depends on how much income you have. There may be a modest premium based on your income. This determination will be made when you apply for the program. At the present time, there is a moratorium on premiums.

That means right now, no one is paying premiums for this program.

What if I already have health insurance through my employer?
If you have health insurance coverage through your employer, you should keep the insurance and talk with your local social services district worker. Medicaid may cover the cost of the premium for that insurance coverage. If you have family coverage through your employer you may wish to keep that coverage as the Medicaid Buy-In program for Working People with Disabilities does not offer family coverage.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: tss4
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>LordMagnusKain</b></i><BR><blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Todd33</b></i><BR>I pay far more in federal taxes than he makes a year, yet I only have two computers <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0"><hr></blockquote><BR><BR>your priorities are out of wack.. and you probibly don't have 7 people who all want to us computers at the same time.<BR><BR>And you can argue that what i have now is good all you want, i agree, i don't want less. But i don't want more.<hr></blockquote><BR><BR>The tax payer doesn't need to be footing the bill for your 5 computers. Learn to share.

LOL!

hey, my point is that i don't need any more of your money than we get now;

learn do share? what does that mean anyway?

and technically the tax payer foots the bill for my food, housing and education. The computers, broadband access, and digital cable are with the left over cash. We don?t have a new car, make you feel better? Just 89 civic, 92 crown Victoria, and 98 Buick.

No one making 18k is contributing anything to the system

that's not true; we still have 12.5% of our pay going to social security and Medicare. Of course that's generally only off of the 1/2 minimum wage that waitresses get paid in Texas.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>tss4</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>LordMagnusKain</b></i><BR><blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Todd33</b></i><BR>I pay far more in federal taxes than he makes a year, yet I only have two computers <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0"><hr></blockquote><BR><BR>your priorities are out of wack.. and you probibly don't have 7 people who all want to us computers at the same time.<BR><BR>And you can argue that what i have now is good all you want, i agree, i don't want less. But i don't want more.<hr></blockquote><BR><BR>The tax payer doesn't need to be footing the bill for your 5 computers. Learn to share.<hr></blockquote>

LOL!

hey, my point is that i don't need any more of your money than we get now;

learn do share? what does that mean anyway?

and technically the tax payer foots the bill for my food, housing and education. The computers, broadband access, and digital cable are with the left over cash. We don?t have a new car, make you feel better? Just 89 civic, 92 crown Victoria, and 98 Buick.

<blockquote>quote:
<hr>No one making 18k is contributing anything to the system<hr></blockquote> that's not true; we still have 12.5% of our pay going to social security and Medicare. Of course that's generally only off of the 1/2 minimum wage that waitresses get paid in Texas.

You have 3 cars too?????

If you have enough money left over far all that stuff, the government shouldn't have been giving you so much. Learn to share means that you can learn to share time on less then 5 computers. What a hypocrit. You talk a bout values and responsibility, but you take without regard to what's right.

 

[Infohawk]

Anybody know if the Republicans have discussed the growing poverty at the convention yet? How do they plan to deal with this? More trickle-down economics?

 

[Infohawk]

I wonder what kind of awesome plan GWB has planned for these poor people? Diebold voting errors?

 

[Todd33]

They can just join the infantry and die in Arab nations. It's a plan.