Poverty in the world?s richest country

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Income is hardly an accurate indicator of poverty.

Originally posted by: raildogg
Our population is higher than all those countries combined.

For a country this size, we are not doing too bad.

as Daniel said, income is not the only source to measure poverty.

Just look at the Apologists go.

This happened on your watch, YOUR watch.

Way to take down a once mighty Nation, clap clap clap.

Where were you in 1995 when the rate was at 15.1%?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: raildogg
Our population is higher than all those countries combined.

Japan 120 million + German 80 million + France 60 million + Italy 58 million + UK 60 million = 378 million.

So not quite...

I've read that we now have the world's third largest population at about 300 million, behind India and China. (What wonderful company to be in.) According to Census Bureau statistics, in the ten years from 1990-2000 the nation suffered a massive population increase of 32.7 million people, or about an 11-12% rate of population growth over a ten year time period, which is almost at third world levels. (I assume that the Census Bureau stats don't count illegal aliens, so the real numbers are probably higher.)

Guess which demographic has the most children.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JinLien
Poverty in the world?s richest country

The number of people living below the poverty line in the United States is estimated at a staggering 37 million or 12.7 per cent of the country?s population.

The US poverty rate of 12.7 percent is reported to be the highest in the developed world, while it is reportedly more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries.

The gap between the rich and the poor is also wider in the US than in most other developed countries. In the US, the poorest 10 per cent reportedly receive only 1.9 per cent of the country?s income, as against 4.8 per cent in Japan, 3.2 per cent in Germany, 2.8 percent in France, 2.3 per cent in Italy and 2.1 percent in the UK

It is very sad for America if the article is correct.

What is your suggestion to fix it? 38 years of a war on poverty hasnt moved the poverty rate anywhere.

More money obviously isnt the answer.

Links?

If we look here http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf (see pp 13) when President Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. By 1973, this was cut to 11.1 percent, approximately where it stayed for the rest of the decade until Reagan revolution of slashing poverty programs etc.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JinLien
Poverty in the world?s richest country

The number of people living below the poverty line in the United States is estimated at a staggering 37 million or 12.7 per cent of the country?s population.

The US poverty rate of 12.7 percent is reported to be the highest in the developed world, while it is reportedly more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries.

The gap between the rich and the poor is also wider in the US than in most other developed countries. In the US, the poorest 10 per cent reportedly receive only 1.9 per cent of the country?s income, as against 4.8 per cent in Japan, 3.2 per cent in Germany, 2.8 percent in France, 2.3 per cent in Italy and 2.1 percent in the UK

It is very sad for America if the article is correct.

What is your suggestion to fix it? 38 years of a war on poverty hasnt moved the poverty rate anywhere.

More money obviously isnt the answer.

Links?

If we look here http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf (see pp 13) when President Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. By 1973, this was cut to 11.1 percent, approximately where it stayed for the rest of the decade until Reagan revolution of slashing poverty programs etc.

This is probably the same link I am looking at except mine is in text format
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Johnson declared war on poverty in his 1964 state of the union adress. But my understand was they held several studies and hearings through the 65-66 sessions while implementing the programs. They expanded the assistence programs from 45 to 456 under Johnson. The war wasnt really set forth until 66-68 and from 68-05 we have moved .1%.

The war on poverty is at its limit and it is obvious throwing money at the situation can not and will not take the last ~10-12% of the our population over the poverty line.

We have either created a welfare state that is a permanent crutch for a part of our population or there is just an invisible wall that wont be breached and a certain % of the population will always be considered under the poverty line.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Strk

Guess which demographic has the most children.

Which one?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JinLien
Poverty in the world?s richest country

The number of people living below the poverty line in the United States is estimated at a staggering 37 million or 12.7 per cent of the country?s population.

The US poverty rate of 12.7 percent is reported to be the highest in the developed world, while it is reportedly more than twice as high as in most other industrialized countries.

The gap between the rich and the poor is also wider in the US than in most other developed countries. In the US, the poorest 10 per cent reportedly receive only 1.9 per cent of the country?s income, as against 4.8 per cent in Japan, 3.2 per cent in Germany, 2.8 percent in France, 2.3 per cent in Italy and 2.1 percent in the UK

It is very sad for America if the article is correct.

What is your suggestion to fix it? 38 years of a war on poverty hasnt moved the poverty rate anywhere.

More money obviously isnt the answer.

Links?

If we look here http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf (see pp 13) when President Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. By 1973, this was cut to 11.1 percent, approximately where it stayed for the rest of the decade until Reagan revolution of slashing poverty programs etc.

This is probably the same link I am looking at except mine is in text format
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Johnson declared war on poverty in his 1964 state of the union adress. But my understand was they held several studies and hearings through the 65-66 sessions while implementing the programs. They expanded the assistence programs from 45 to 456 under Johnson. The war wasnt really set forth until 66-68 and from 68-05 we have moved .1%.

The war on poverty is at its limit and it is obvious throwing money at the situation can not and will not take the last ~10-12% of the our population over the poverty line.

We have either created a welfare state that is a permanent crutch for a part of our population or there is just an invisible wall that wont be breached and a certain % of the population will always be considered under the poverty line.

Yea maybe you should do a little homework because just about everything you say is false. The Economic Opportunity Act was passed in 1964 as was The Development Act. In 1965 congress passed Medicare and Medicaid, which is largy responsible for reducing senior citzen poverty from 30+% instantly droping and staying around 10%, that's a huge change when 2/3's the people formerly myrid in poverty are perinially out now. Hardy as you claim "38 years of a war on poverty hasnt moved the poverty rate anywhere." Where do you get this information?

The war on poverty is at its limit and it is obvious throwing money at the situation can not and will not take the last ~10-12% of the our population over the poverty line.

Not obvious to me how so? 5% I can beleive since the natural rate of unemployment is theorised by every economist to sit there.

 

[GoPackGo]

I grew up in the 80's in a "working poor" family.

My dad worked hard and struggled to make a better life for all of us.

In the mid to late 90s the family crossed the poverty line.

My brother, sister and I have used that example in our lives.

I currently work IT at a software company.
My sister is a Surgical RN at a hospital.
Any my brother is going to school for accounting.

It is the example we set for our children that is most important of all.

 

[Genx87]

Yea maybe you should do a little homework because just about everything you say is false. The Economic Opportunity Act was passed in 1964 as was The Development Act. In 1965 congress passed Medicare and Medicaid, which is largy responsible for reducing senior citzen poverty from 30+% instantly droping and staying around 10%, that's a huge change when 2/3's the people formerly myrid in poverty are perinially out now. Hardy as you claim "38 years of a war on poverty hasnt moved the poverty rate anywhere." Where do you get this information?

Are we looking at the same information? The poverty rate has moved +- ~3% for nearly 40 years.

Not obvious to me how so? 5% I can beleive since the natural rate of unemployment is theorised by every economist to sit there.

By 40 years of statistical information? The lowest we have seen is 11.1% in 1973 and it has fluctuated between 11-13% for the better part of 40 years.

If that isnt obvious I dont know what is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

::yawn::

Another ignorant "Look at all the poor in America" article.

First of all, the problem with articles like these is that it conflates the definition of "poverty." It uses the US definition of what is poverty and compares it to Bangladesh, Pakistan, and other countries to imply we have the identical problem. Sorry, but the poor in those countries can barely afford shelter, let alone a car, TV, and some of the other "necessities" of life. In comparison to those countries, our "poor" would be considered fortunate souls.

Then it goes on to make comparisons to the US based on the "country's income," which I suppose is supposed to be GDP, as the article talks about GDP at the end. However, it doesn't acknowledge the much higher GDP of the US than the rest of those countries, which is going to skew the percentages. Is the article also including illegal immigrants in its figures? It doesn't say. But immigration, illegal and other wise, is one big factor for the poor in this nation, particularly among the Hispanic group. Many other of the countries mentioned aren't quite as willing to accept immigrants and have far more stringent protectionist policies in place. Then it talks about the Hispanics and Black poor and doesn't mention the Asians. Why is it that the Asian minority has such a low poverty rate in the US? Could it have something to do with family units and work ethics? Of course, it's not PC to bring up subjects like that so few want to talk about it.

All in all, it's another in a line of alarmist articles about the poor in the US that distorts or omits facts around the case.

 

[shrumpage]

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread, and i hope everyone can answer it honestly:

How many are doing better then their parents are now? or How many are doing better then their parents, when their parents were the same age?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Poverty is a subjective definition. I'd be willing to bet that in our poverty class you'd find a surprisingly high rate of car ownership, TV ownership and very few who actually go to sleep hungry. (I won't even get into cable TV and internet access) In most countries that standard of living is a fantasy come true.

Being poor anywhere sucks. But I'd rather be poor here than anywhere else.

Relative to the poor in the rest of the world, America's poor are well off. However, it still sucks. They only have run down cars, old TVs, and difficulty paying to keep a roof over their heads. Many are even homeless.

So, don't buy the BS argument that poverty (and the economy and the availability of ladders of upward mobility and lower middle class and middle class jobs) isn't an issue. It is. (Just what would you do if you lost your job/career/educational investment and were unable to obtain a mere lower middle class job due to lack of availability?)

Well I'm sorry everyone can't afford a Lexus and a Plasma TV.

As for your second question. It has happened to me, and I ended up better off for it. If it happened again I'd be just fine. It's not something I worry about.

And interesting that you oint out a lack of middle class jobs. Where is it written that you have to have a job to pull yourself out of poverty?

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

This country was not founded on a socialist utopian fantasy. It was founded on the ideal that anyone who was willing to work hard enough and use their God-given abilites would have the opportunity to achieve anything they wanted. It was about having opportunities. NOT guarnaties.

You should know that high expectations always give way to reality in the end. And the reality is that in any society there will be people who are wealthy, well off, middle class, lower class and poor. That will never change. Like death and taxes, there will always be poor people. It's unavoidable.

When you live in a country where being poor means that you are better off than 75% of the rest of the world you've got something to be proud of. What's more, when you live in a country where a poor person can rise in class and make a better life for themselves... that's something to really be proud of.

Unlike almost every other country on this planet, being poor in America isn't a life sentence.

The issue is whether much of what you said is still true. Is economic class mobility still possible? Does the nation still have a "meritocracy"? Is it still possible for the overwhelming majority of hard-working, responsible people to work their way up? Are opportunities still available?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I (and other people I know) are living proof that it is indeed possible. It's not easy. It takes a long time. But it is very possible to rise in class.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Income is hardly an accurate indicator of poverty.

Originally posted by: raildogg
Our population is higher than all those countries combined.

For a country this size, we are not doing too bad.

as Daniel said, income is not the only source to measure poverty.

Just look at the Apologists go.

This happened on your watch, YOUR watch.

Way to take down a once mighty Nation, clap clap clap.

Where were you in 1995 when the rate was at 15.1%?
/q]

Paying it and doing just fine, in fact had just bought my first house at 8.25%

Where were you, pre-school???

 

[musicc]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
hey, it may be turning into a sh1thole, but it's the usa...how dare you point it out...the french may hear..and I wouldnt want to look bad in front of those f@gs /end small dick complex

I see your points, but I find that very offensive to others. Please reconsider your wording.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread, and i hope everyone can answer it honestly:

How many are doing better then their parents are now? or How many are doing better then their parents, when their parents were the same age?

Parents did better.

Working twice as hard and long and they did better.

They were home every night for dinner at the kitchen table, how many can say that these days???

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Income is hardly an accurate indicator of poverty.

Originally posted by: raildogg
Our population is higher than all those countries combined.

For a country this size, we are not doing too bad.

as Daniel said, income is not the only source to measure poverty.

Just look at the Apologists go.

This happened on your watch, YOUR watch.

Way to take down a once mighty Nation, clap clap clap.

Then why didn't Clinton wipe out poverty. 😕 He had 8 years. What's your excuse for him?

Why haven't 40 years of liberal social programs wiped out poverty?

All this has happened on your watch, YOUR watch. Start appolgizing. The poor people deserve to here your excuses.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Elect me and the common man will pre-vail.

I've met grade school children with a better education than you. You'd screw this country up with such great efficiency; after all, look how your own life turned out.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Parents did better.

Working twice as hard and long and they did better.

They were home every night for dinner at the kitchen table, how many can say that these days???

I can. But then again, I do live in a double-wide Ivory Tower. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread, and i hope everyone can answer it honestly:

How many are doing better then their parents are now? or How many are doing better then their parents, when their parents were the same age?

I would say I am doing about the same as my parents. Time will tell if I end up doing better or not. My dad owns a very sucessfull distribution company so he set the bar high.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was watching some ants march along outside and got to wondering which of them was rich and which poor, they all seemed so uniformly well formed, will bred and well fed. Probably it was because the queen was taking everything they made in taxes and redistributing it according to need. Such an interesting form of government they have, one that's lasted millions and millions of years.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: episodic
I love the people who think every poor person can instantly change and pull themselves out of poverty. There are not jobs for them to get out of poverty. There are barely jobs for qualified college graduates to stay out of poverty - how are the millions of poor going to suddenly get a better job? Get real.

Nothing is sudden. I've worked and gone to school at the same time. I know people that raised children, worked two jobs and went to college. In the end, they made it.

It's not about suddenly changing, but about breaking the cycle.

It's almost all irrelevent anyways, because over the past 40 years of spending trillions of dollars on liberal social programs, the cycle has yet to break.

That means that money isn't the solution and that there are people who choose not to participate; they are content being poor.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Income is hardly an accurate indicator of poverty.

Originally posted by: raildogg
Our population is higher than all those countries combined.

For a country this size, we are not doing too bad.

as Daniel said, income is not the only source to measure poverty.

Just look at the Apologists go.

This happened on your watch, YOUR watch.

Way to take down a once mighty Nation, clap clap clap.

Where were you in 1995 when the rate was at 15.1%?
/q]

Paying it and doing just fine, in fact had just bought my first house at 8.25%

Where were you, pre-school???

Typical response from the local nutjob.

If you are this worried about us at 12.7% you must have had your head explode in 1995 when the poverty rate was at 15.1%.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I was watching some ants march along outside and got to wondering which of them was rich and which poor, they all seemed so uniformly well formed, will bred and well fed. Probably it was because the queen was taking everything they made in taxes and redistributing it according to need. Such an interesting form of government they have, one that's lasted millions and millions of years.

If you like that form of government, I'm sure there are some communist countries willing to accept you as a citizen. Communism hasn't worked with humans though. Neither has socialism.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread, and i hope everyone can answer it honestly:

How many are doing better then their parents are now? or How many are doing better then their parents, when their parents were the same age?

Parents did better.

Working twice as hard and long and they did better.

They were home every night for dinner at the kitchen table, how many can say that these days???

Sounds to me like your parents are smarter than you if you have to work twice as hard and they did better.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread, and i hope everyone can answer it honestly:

How many are doing better then their parents are now? or How many are doing better then their parents, when their parents were the same age?

My parents are both now semi-retired and have set themselves up quite nicely due to a bit of luck and some shrewd investments. I can't say I'm doing better than they are at this point. However, I'm doing far, far better than they did when they were the same age as are my five siblings.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread, and i hope everyone can answer it honestly:

How many are doing better then their parents are now? or How many are doing better then their parents, when their parents were the same age?

Parents did better.

Working twice as hard and long and they did better.

They were home every night for dinner at the kitchen table, how many can say that these days???

Sounds to me like your parents are smarter than you if you have to work twice as hard and they did better.

First you need to define better. If I'm making less money but happier, then I'd say I did better. If I make millions but I'm not happy, I'd say I did worse. Poverty is subjective.