Nearly 36 Million Americans Living in Poverty

[Train]

Originally posted by: 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.

yes thats actual spending, remember, not all spending comes from the Federal budget, there are 50 State budgets, plus DC.

 

[HamSupLo]

What's so scary about indigent people? Are they the new enemy? Oh no, we have to take away their welfare! Compared to the rediculous amounts of money we are throwing away at the war at Iraq, how do the conservatives justify that? So the billions we spend for those ungrateful Iraqis worth more than helping the people in our inner cities?

And who saids that people on welfare squander their money on booze and cigs? Is that a blanket statement or have any of you no of such on the first hand? At least the money they spend goes back into our economy. People have to pay for rent and food to survive. On the other hand, I'm not sure if that extra Lexus or Benz the rich can buy with their huge tax cuts can really make a dent in the economic recovery.

 

[Train]

Buy votes from the poor? Who told you that Rush? News flash, the poor have very low voter turnout

let me rephrase that, change "Buy votes from the poor" to "suck up to the ACLU"

from thier own website:

Welfare laws and practices have often violated the rights of the poor, especially poor women and their children. The federal welfare reform law passed in 1996 is no exception. Under the law, states can deny welfare to any child born into a family already receiving welfare. The ACLU is challenging these child exclusion laws in New Jersey and several other states as unconstitutional because they discriminate against children arbitrarily, based only on the circumstances of their birth, and they unconstitutionally coerce women?s reproductive decisions. The ACLU, working in coalition with other women?s and child welfare organizations, is also lobbying Congress to undo other serious flaws in the nation?s welfare laws that undermine the privacy and dignity of low-income families.

hey look they hit all three of my keywords from above! (rights, privacy, dignity)
Edit: And they threw in the other politician-killing word "discriminate" ooooh they're good.

ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the ban on challenging welfare reform laws, leaving for another day the final resolution of challenges to the other restrictions. The ACLU continues to lobby against the existing restrictions.

who needs voter turnout when the ACLU is ensuring the continued failure of the welfare system?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HamSupLo
What's so scary about indigent people? Are they the new enemy? Oh no, we have to take away their welfare! Compared to the rediculous amounts of money we are throwing away at the war at Iraq, how do the conservatives justify that? So the billions we spend for those ungrateful Iraqis worth more than helping the people in our inner cities?

And who saids that people on welfare squander their money on booze and cigs? Is that a blanket statement or have any of you no of such on the first hand? At least the money they spend goes back into our economy. People have to pay for rent and food to survive. On the other hand, I'm not sure if that extra Lexus or Benz the rich can buy with their huge tax cuts can really make a dent in the economic recovery.

I know for a fact that there is a great deal of abuse in the welfare system. Again, I grew up in the inner city.

I do not support the war in Iraq either.

What I am for is the responsible administration of both money and military.

If there is a solution to the middle east situation, this war isn't it. Neither is there sense or benefit to give money away without determining how it is best done. Nor will simply saying "tough, I don't care if your kids are hungry and I don't care if you can't help it either" help much.

I am of the opinion that people must evaluate the system as it stands, determine where it works, and how it does not, and give people incentive and real opportunity to work.

There will be people who cannot work for legitimite reasons. They should not be on the street.

Most reasonable people see the need for improvement, and the need for a social safety net administered responsibly.

As has been pointed out, realpolitik makes this difficult. Unwillingness to face and deal with the issues is what would make it impossible though.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Train

Buy votes from the poor? Who told you that Rush? News flash, the poor have very low voter turnout

let me rephrase that, change "Buy votes from the poor" to "suck up to the ACLU"

from thier own website:

Welfare laws and practices have often violated the rights of the poor, especially poor women and their children. The federal welfare reform law passed in 1996 is no exception. Under the law, states can deny welfare to any child born into a family already receiving welfare. The ACLU is challenging these child exclusion laws in New Jersey and several other states as unconstitutional because they discriminate against children arbitrarily, based only on the circumstances of their birth, and they unconstitutionally coerce women?s reproductive decisions. The ACLU, working in coalition with other women?s and child welfare organizations, is also lobbying Congress to undo other serious flaws in the nation?s welfare laws that undermine the privacy and dignity of low-income families.

hey look they hit all three of my keywords from above! (rights, privacy, dignity)
Edit: And they threw in the other politician-killing word "discriminate" ooooh they're good.

ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the ban on challenging welfare reform laws, leaving for another day the final resolution of challenges to the other restrictions. The ACLU continues to lobby against the existing restrictions.

who needs voter turnout when the ACLU is ensuring the continued failure of the welfare system?

You're giving the ACLU entirely too much credit. Sure, they lobby politicians, but its the voters that don't seem to care one way or the other on the issue right now. Everyone agrees it needs to be fixed but no one's voting based on that issue right now. If they were, you'd see some changes. Maybe when we're done with this Iraq thing and the economy is fully recovered...

 

[thuper]

(see sig)

 

[ReiAyanami]

Bush thought "War on Poverty" meant "War on Poor People"

 

[piasabird]

You have to pay a tax to get a tax cut. Rich poor doesnt matter much. Technically everyone pays sales taxes if they ever buy anything. A tax cut just means they are sending your money back.

 

[piasabird]

The more you spend on the poor, the more poor people there will be. It just makes sense. Why work when you can get a free meal?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The more you spend on the poor, the more poor people there will be. It just makes sense. Why work when you can get a free meal?

Let me say something equally as retarded: The more you take form the rich, the more rich people there will be. It just makes since.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously, though, no one is implying we should throw random money at poor people. The money should be used to fund jobs that serve as stepping stones to better jobs. That way the money for nothing mentality can't develop and we can still help the honest people that need it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love the level of false attribution coming from the Right on this subject. Any of you ever been on welfare, or even known anybody who was? And then there's the equally false attributions slapped on "Liberals"- basically, that we support welfare cheats, believe it's their right, when nothing is further from the truth.

And there's the twisted ethics involved in condemning the ACLU and their position on children's welfare eligibility. By such reasoning, welfare mothers would have to engage in complete abstinence, highly unlikely, or their new children would not receive benefits because their parent's method of birth control wasn't 100% effective- none are, btw... Punish the child for their parent's actions, a brilliant bit of compassionate conservatism... folks who've also disallowed welfare from paying for birth control or abortions...

And for those of you who think the economy is recovering, just think what would happen to the unemployment #''s if all those folks suddenly started looking for work... In a situation where there aren't enough jobs to go around, it seems slightly dishonest to disparage those who don't have 'em...

The people I've known over the years who actually received welfare hated it desperately- they were all mothers of small children, toddlers, whose fathers had abandoned their families. They were also young, and basically unskilled, and not necessarily very bright. But none stayed with it for long- they went to great lengths to get educated, get jobs, get out of the system, which isn't easy, at all.

Let's look at the other side of it- 20 years of trickledown economic policy hasn't increased the purchasing power or net worth of the middle class one bit, and has actually increased the # of poor... but the net worth of the top 1% has soared- tell you anything?

 

[umbrella39]

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.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
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.

If you want socialism/socialized medicine, move to Canada.

Originally posted by: 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--

The president doesn't control the economy except in three ways:
1) Tax cuts (increase the amount of money in peoples' pockets)
2) Increase government spending
3) Affecting consumer confidence (Greenspan has mostly taken this role over now)

Further, Kerry (and most of the rest of the legislature) sent our men and women to 'die in a contrived war.'

 

[Todd33]

Further, Kerry (and most of the rest of the legislature) sent our men and women to 'die in a contrived war.'

No they didn't. There was no declaration of war, it was a Commander in Cheif action. The Buck stops where?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
What Economic Recovery....

You know the one that Charrison, Heartsurgeon, CAD & Co, Ruch, Hannity and Bush & his minions say is the best Economy in 20 years and promised 3 millions new jobs by this October. 😕

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Further, Kerry (and most of the rest of the legislature) sent our men and women to 'die in a contrived war.'

No they didn't. There was no declaration of war, it was a Commander in Cheif action. The Buck stops where?

They voted to support the 'action of aggression' or whatever you want to call it. Does that mean the people in the legislature who support military action should not also be held responsible? I doubt there will ever again be a declaration of war, barring the EU joining up to attack us, but that doesn't mean only the president is responsible. What it comes down to is this: the President, the legislature, England, Russia, and many other countries thought, nay KNEW, that Iraq had WMD (and they did, and they used them against Kurds and Iran, and we have found small caches around Iraq since, in the possession of insurgents). Despite all that, blame Bush for doing what he, and the legislature, and 34 other countries, thought was right?

[edit]
Just to back up my statements a little...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
--May 17, 2004

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib%3AArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/06/28&ID=Ar01002
--June 28, 2004

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm
--July 1, 2004

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/038033.php
--~35 shells found with sarin/mustard to this point

You could argue that these are just leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, but the fact is that Saddam did have them, refused to disarm them, and refused to account for them in reports to weapons inspectors. You could also say that it's only a little bit of sarin/mustard gases, but these 35 shells are enough to make 9/11 look like a hayday if used properly. One drop of sarin on your skin is enough to kill you, and dispersing it in the atmosphere allows it to be spread to tens of thousands in a crowded area.[/edit]

 

[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?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Topic Title: Nearly 36 Million Americans Living in Poverty
Topic Summary: Some 1.3 million Americans slid into poverty in 2003 despite the economic recovery

Whichever job I get, either with the big Soda Company in Atlanta for $8hr or the Big Cable Company that sounds like a Charter Fishing Expedition for $10hr I will be Officially in the Poverty class after living expenses.

 

[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.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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*

 

[conjur]

mm hmmm


But, if what you say is true, you're a big recipient of the welfare programs provided for by the liberal government.

Interesting, eh?

 

[XMan]

What is the definition of poverty, exactly?

I'd venture a guess to say that the American definition of poverty is somewhat different from that of Mexico, Ethiopia, etcetera.

For example, I saw a woman pan-handling today . . . she had on a nice pair of jeans and a t-shirt, and was probably forty pounds overweight.

Say what you will about the economy, but when your supposed poor are getting enough food to be overweight, the system isn't entirely broke. This assumes, of course, that the woman wasn't a professional panhandler . . .

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur

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.

mm hmmm


But, if what you say is true, you're a big recipient of the welfare programs provided for by the liberal government.

Interesting, eh?

Definitely, but we have had a compassionate conservative government, Gengricintch that stole Christmas and all, w/ welfare reform, for many years now.

I?m just letting you know that we ?impoverished? and poor in this nation aren?t in need of being ?out of poverty? by means of more wealth redistribution, we have enough, thank you.

More reform is needed, particularly in discouraging consistent feeding at the government teat, and more encouragement of better education, and education in fields ware the demand is strong.

As it is you get the same, if not more money, to become a French-poetry major than you do to become a computer technician. As it is food-stamps are freely available to the poor, unless they go to collage, then they need a job as well. As it is drug possession in your youth means that you?ll never have a government hand-up out of poverty.

These are the real issues, not that we don?t have enough funds, but that the system that was installed in the past works to keep us from working our way up, and discourages us from focusing on what is in demand. Your progressive, Your progressive, let?s progress past the idea of a state that gives you want you want, and into the idea of a state that helps you earn what you can be worth to society.

This shouldn't be a left-right issue.