Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income
360 Comments
Have Your Say Email Story
Send to a FriendShare ThisTell Your FriendsTweet ThisTweet ThisMoreShare It. Del.icio.usFacebookStumbleuponNewsvineYahoo bookmarksMixxDiggRedditGoogle BookmarksTwitterLinkedIn The St. Columbanus Church food pantry in Chicago feeds 500 households a week, but some weeks it struggles to keep up with demand. (CBS)
(AP) WASHINGTON - Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans â€" nearly 1 in 2 â€" have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.
The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.
"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.
"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."
Video: New data shows poverty at an all-time high
Poverty in America: The faces behind the figures
Most U.S. unemployed no longer receive benefits
Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax cut, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
"There's no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen," Rector said. "As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work."
CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts told the story in November of the Struble family. They are college educated, career-holding members of America's vast middle class. They had a combined annual income of $85,000. But in November of 2009, Todd lost his job, and hasn't had a steady paycheck since.
They now have only an estimated $25 in their savings account, perhaps another $100 in their checking. Click on the player at left to see the full story of America's middle class in decline.
Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold â€" roughly $45,000 for a family of four â€" because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family's income.
States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million.
The struggling Americans include Zenobia Bechtol, 18, in Austin, Texas, who earns minimum wage as a part-time pizza delivery driver. Bechtol and her 7-month-old baby were recently evicted from their bedbug-infested apartment after her boyfriend, an electrician, lost his job in the sluggish economy.
After an 18-month job search, Bechtol's boyfriend now works as a waiter and the family of three is temporarily living with her mother.
"We're paying my mom $200 a month for rent, and after diapers and formula and gas for work, we barely have enough money to spend," said Bechtol, a high school graduate who wants to go to college. "If it weren't for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn't have been able to survive."
Since the housing bubble burst, nearly 4 million American homes have been lost to foreclosure. An estimated 1.6 million children will be homeless at some time during the year - 38 percent more than at the start of the recession. As CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy explains, unemployment has driven some families to the southern California desert, where a barren old WWII training ground in the desert has become a place for many to park their troubled lives. Click on the player at left for the full story of "Slab City".
About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure.
The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.
Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income â€" about 57 percent â€" followed by seniors over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites.
Even by traditional measures, many working families are hurting.
Following the recession that began in late 2007, the share of working families who are low income has risen for three straight years to 31.2 percent, or 10.2 million. That proportion is the highest in at least a decade, up from 27 percent in 2002, according to a new analysis by the Working Poor Families Project and the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.
Among low-income families, about one-third were considered poor while the remainder â€" 6.9 million â€" earned income just above the poverty line. Many states phase out eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, tax credit and other government aid programs for low-income Americans as they approach 200 percent of the poverty level.
The majority of low-income families â€" 62 percent â€" spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth.
Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000.
A survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors being released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale.
Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs.
Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., Sacramento, Calif., and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations, while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.
Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.
"People who never thought they would need food are in need of help," said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/
If the patience and trust of the American people was a checkbook, you could mark it 'Account Overdrawn.' This is something that the monied interests and their Beltway bandits just do not yet comprehend. Or perhaps they do, but do not have enough respect for the people to care.
So did Lyndon B Johnson lose the war on poverty?
^^^No, the United States did.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 12:12:13 PM
Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income
360 Comments
Have Your Say Email Story
Send to a FriendShare ThisTell Your FriendsTweet ThisTweet ThisMoreShare It. Del.icio.usFacebookStumbleuponNewsvineYahoo bookmarksMixxDiggRedditGoogle BookmarksTwitterLinkedIn The St. Columbanus Church food pantry in Chicago feeds 500 households a week, but some weeks it struggles to keep up with demand. (CBS)
(AP) WASHINGTON - Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans â€" nearly 1 in 2 â€" have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.
The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.
"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.
"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."
Video: New data shows poverty at an all-time high
Poverty in America: The faces behind the figures
Most U.S. unemployed no longer receive benefits
Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax cut, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
"There's no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen," Rector said. "As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work."
CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts told the story in November of the Struble family. They are college educated, career-holding members of America's vast middle class. They had a combined annual income of $85,000. But in November of 2009, Todd lost his job, and hasn't had a steady paycheck since.
They now have only an estimated $25 in their savings account, perhaps another $100 in their checking. Click on the player at left to see the full story of America's middle class in decline.
Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold â€" roughly $45,000 for a family of four â€" because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family's income.
States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million.
The struggling Americans include Zenobia Bechtol, 18, in Austin, Texas, who earns minimum wage as a part-time pizza delivery driver. Bechtol and her 7-month-old baby were recently evicted from their bedbug-infested apartment after her boyfriend, an electrician, lost his job in the sluggish economy.
After an 18-month job search, Bechtol's boyfriend now works as a waiter and the family of three is temporarily living with her mother.
"We're paying my mom $200 a month for rent, and after diapers and formula and gas for work, we barely have enough money to spend," said Bechtol, a high school graduate who wants to go to college. "If it weren't for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn't have been able to survive."
Since the housing bubble burst, nearly 4 million American homes have been lost to foreclosure. An estimated 1.6 million children will be homeless at some time during the year - 38 percent more than at the start of the recession. As CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy explains, unemployment has driven some families to the southern California desert, where a barren old WWII training ground in the desert has become a place for many to park their troubled lives. Click on the player at left for the full story of "Slab City".
About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure.
The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.
Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income â€" about 57 percent â€" followed by seniors over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites.
Even by traditional measures, many working families are hurting.
Following the recession that began in late 2007, the share of working families who are low income has risen for three straight years to 31.2 percent, or 10.2 million. That proportion is the highest in at least a decade, up from 27 percent in 2002, according to a new analysis by the Working Poor Families Project and the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.
Among low-income families, about one-third were considered poor while the remainder â€" 6.9 million â€" earned income just above the poverty line. Many states phase out eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, tax credit and other government aid programs for low-income Americans as they approach 200 percent of the poverty level.
The majority of low-income families â€" 62 percent â€" spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth.
Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000.
A survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors being released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale.
Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs.
Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., Sacramento, Calif., and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations, while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.
Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.
"People who never thought they would need food are in need of help," said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/
Ummm, thats BS. When all these poverty stricken Americans give up their smart phones and flat screens, then i will believe they live in poverty. Until then.
Quote from: RMHoward on December 16, 2011, 05:43:39 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 12:12:13 PM
Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income
360 Comments
Have Your Say Email Story
Send to a FriendShare ThisTell Your FriendsTweet ThisTweet ThisMoreShare It. Del.icio.usFacebookStumbleuponNewsvineYahoo bookmarksMixxDiggRedditGoogle BookmarksTwitterLinkedIn The St. Columbanus Church food pantry in Chicago feeds 500 households a week, but some weeks it struggles to keep up with demand. (CBS)
(AP) WASHINGTON - Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans â€" nearly 1 in 2 â€" have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.
The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.
"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.
"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."
Video: New data shows poverty at an all-time high
Poverty in America: The faces behind the figures
Most U.S. unemployed no longer receive benefits
Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax cut, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
"There's no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen," Rector said. "As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work."
CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts told the story in November of the Struble family. They are college educated, career-holding members of America's vast middle class. They had a combined annual income of $85,000. But in November of 2009, Todd lost his job, and hasn't had a steady paycheck since.
They now have only an estimated $25 in their savings account, perhaps another $100 in their checking. Click on the player at left to see the full story of America's middle class in decline.
Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold â€" roughly $45,000 for a family of four â€" because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family's income.
States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million.
The struggling Americans include Zenobia Bechtol, 18, in Austin, Texas, who earns minimum wage as a part-time pizza delivery driver. Bechtol and her 7-month-old baby were recently evicted from their bedbug-infested apartment after her boyfriend, an electrician, lost his job in the sluggish economy.
After an 18-month job search, Bechtol's boyfriend now works as a waiter and the family of three is temporarily living with her mother.
"We're paying my mom $200 a month for rent, and after diapers and formula and gas for work, we barely have enough money to spend," said Bechtol, a high school graduate who wants to go to college. "If it weren't for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn't have been able to survive."
Since the housing bubble burst, nearly 4 million American homes have been lost to foreclosure. An estimated 1.6 million children will be homeless at some time during the year - 38 percent more than at the start of the recession. As CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy explains, unemployment has driven some families to the southern California desert, where a barren old WWII training ground in the desert has become a place for many to park their troubled lives. Click on the player at left for the full story of "Slab City".
About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure.
The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.
Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income â€" about 57 percent â€" followed by seniors over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites.
Even by traditional measures, many working families are hurting.
Following the recession that began in late 2007, the share of working families who are low income has risen for three straight years to 31.2 percent, or 10.2 million. That proportion is the highest in at least a decade, up from 27 percent in 2002, according to a new analysis by the Working Poor Families Project and the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.
Among low-income families, about one-third were considered poor while the remainder â€" 6.9 million â€" earned income just above the poverty line. Many states phase out eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, tax credit and other government aid programs for low-income Americans as they approach 200 percent of the poverty level.
The majority of low-income families â€" 62 percent â€" spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth.
Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000.
A survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors being released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale.
Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs.
Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., Sacramento, Calif., and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations, while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.
Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.
"People who never thought they would need food are in need of help," said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/
Ummm, thats BS. When all these poverty stricken Americans give up their smart phones and flat screens, then i will believe they live in poverty. Until then.
Thank you for that random "blame the victim" statement. Any proof behind this random statement, or is this simply a discomfort kneejerk reaction?
From Wikipedia:
"The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty."
Can we finally declare the experiment failed? Massive federal programs have accomplished nothing except to help establish a permanent underclass.
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
From Wikipedia:
"The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty."
Can we finally declare the experiment failed? Massive federal programs have accomplished nothing except to help establish a permanent underclass.
hmm, could it be that the "massive federal programs" are just not performing as well as the "massive national programs" in Germany and Sweden, where poverty rates are not nearly as high as in the US.
Maybe we just haven't made the fight against poverty a priority, the way other civilized nations have.
The US simply accepts a permanent underclass.........a permanent third world status among 50 % of its population.
Really? Third world status for 50%? Officially, 15.1% of Americans have incomes below the arbitrary government poverty line. And that does not include "food stamps", public housing or Earned Income Credit. While these citizens do face problems, third world poverty is not one of them.
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 09:18:17 PM
Really? Third world status for 50%? Officially, 15.1% of Americans have incomes below the arbitrary government poverty line. And that does not include "food stamps", public housing or Earned Income Credit. While these citizens do face problems, third world poverty is not one of them.
Hmmm, third world poverty is not one of their problems? How about being refused emergency food aide............sounds like a third world situation to me alright!
I would say that I trust the word of the Conference of Mayors in the US far more than yours as it turns out you deliberately wear blinders, and are insensitive to the hunger all around you right here in the good old USA:
QuoteA survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors being released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale.
Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs.
Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., Sacramento, Calif., and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations, while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.
Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.
"People who never thought they would need food are in need of help," said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness.
Again, statistics. Emergency food aid is completely different from the poverty we are discussing. Sudden unemployment with no emergency fund or family willing to assist can place people in such a position while awaiting public assistance. The fact that some of these people are in families, have children, are elderly, or all of the above should not surprise no one. Fortunately, this is a relatively rare occurence. I would also think that those "unable to receive food" were actually just told that certain foods were not available, as happens at our local food bank.
Requirements and benefits for SNAP (food stamps) can be found here:
http://www.wenourishhope.org/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
And Faye, no, this is not "third world poverty".
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 10:24:45 PM
Again, statistics. Emergency food aid is completely different from the poverty we are discussing. Sudden unemployment with no emergency fund or family willing to assist can place people in such a position while awaiting public assistance. The fact that some of these people are in families, have children, are elderly, or all of the above should not surprise no one. Fortunately, this is a relatively rare occurence. I would also think that those "unable to receive food" were actually just told that certain foods were not available, as happens at our local food bank.
Requirements and benefits for SNAP (food stamps) can be found here:
http://www.wenourishhope.org/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
And Faye, no, this is not "third world poverty".
Yeah, rare occurance of hunger in America is what Fox news and the Republicans like you to think. Just ignore the problems of the people in favor of coddling the ultra-rich is their motto.
But even sesame street is no longer ignoring the harsh third world realities in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/v/7id5JA4SdEA?
Under the YOYO ideology (You're On Your Own) Republicans would just LOVE to dismantle all (what they sooo fondly refer to as) "entitlements".Glad you had the decency to call them benefits..........that is if you are lucky to get them in the first place.
Being treated like a criminal (as is so often the case when you apply for these supposed "benefits") in your time of need is humiliating and adds insult to injury.
It's like the social security that you've paid into...............Republicans rather have you wait long enough for you to die so they won't have to pay you a penny of your earned social security benefits.
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 06:13:26 PM
Quote from: RMHoward on December 16, 2011, 05:43:39 PM
Ummm, thats BS. When all these poverty stricken Americans give up their smart phones and flat screens, then i will believe they live in poverty. Until then.
This is the kind of sick fantasizing that makes me uninterested in the opinions of these so called conservative republicans.
Really? You would like to see Americans living in the kind of squalor that we used to associate with third world nations?
What kind of American are you anyways?
This kind of post makes me literally sick to my stomach.
Well, feel free to go puke all over your occutard buddies if you are sick to your tummy. As to what kind of American I am? Im the kind of American that would like to see other Americans live within their means. I would like to see Americans use some common sense when prioritizing their needs. I want to see Americans have a little restraint when offered that credit card, home loan, car loan they know they cant afford. Maybe Americans could look at themselves in the mirror when their lives dont turn out the way they think they should and make changes or demands at home, instead of others. Maybe give up some of the luxuries in life in exchange for paying those bills they promised to pay (not at gunpoint, by the way). Etc etc. Simple enough for you Steph????? Want me to draw you a diagram???
Quote from: RMHoward on December 17, 2011, 02:25:17 PM
As to what kind of American I am? Im the kind of American that would like to see other Americans live within their means. I would like to see Americans use some common sense when prioritizing their needs. I want to see Americans have a little restraint when offered that credit card, home loan, car loan they know they cant afford.
Ah that practical European lifestyle, where people save up to buy a car rather than take out a car loan. Funny how you never do advocate that sensible European lifestyle of small houses and tiny cars.
You do realize that we had such fake "economic growth" because conservatives encouraged consumers to go out and spend don't you? Conservatives knew full well that consumer spending was 70% of GDP, so they did all they could to stimulate consumer spending..........including rolling back consumer protections against predatory lending practices.
First it was Republicans who sold us on easy credit for consumers to keep our economy growing and now they blame the consumers for being in debt?
Just a typical Republican approach of blame the victim in a winner takes all environment.
An explanation of he new poverty numbers, basically they moved the line
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/how-is-new-poverty-like-new-coke/
im amazed that americans have watched as republicans and the wealthy fuck our nation and sit back and think we should listen to anything they have to say....they steal lie cheat and the right wing idiots just smile and eat them up and buy them a dinner...what has happened to sanity?
Quote from: RMHoward on December 17, 2011, 02:25:17 PM
Maybe Americans could look at themselves in the mirror when their lives dont turn out the way they think they should
Unless they're a bankster. In that case they can just
ask demand the government bail them out.
Quote from: Garden guy on December 17, 2011, 04:44:47 PM
I'm amazed that Americans have watched as republicans and the wealthy fuck our nation and sit back and think we should listen to anything they have to say....they steal lie cheat and the right wing idiots just smile and eat them up and buy them a dinner...what has happened to sanity?
Well Garden Guy.... I concur with you . SO ....how do we reverse this? Do we sit and protest as students did with OWS and get pepper-sprayed, shot or killed for being totally sick of a one-sided situation and standing up for our rights?
I am no financial expert but I have sense enough to see what is happening and the root of this problem is greed and power mongers. these two elements direct much of our society and in fact govern our country. If I could fire every one of them and start over I would. I think many would. No one seems to be able to come up with a solution. We play world Police and we need to stop. We step in to situations in other countries we have no business being in , in the first place and we need to stop. I am all for helping others , helping less fortunate, feeding the hungry and the down-trodden of not just our country, but the world... however until we as a Nation , as a Government, as a people start putting our country and our people first , as every other nation does for themselves , we will never change this and the declining condition of our economy and our people and poverty will continue in a spiral out of control. period.
I think someday, many will get sick of the way things are and retaliate, and it is not going to be pretty when it happens.
Quote from: RMHoward on December 17, 2011, 02:25:17 PM
Well, feel free to go puke all over your occupied buddies if you are sick to your tummy. As to what kind of American I am? Im the kind of American that would like to see other Americans live within their means. I would like to see Americans use some common sense when prioritizing their needs. I want to see Americans have a little restraint when offered that credit card, home loan, car loan they know they cant afford. Maybe Americans could look at themselves in the mirror when their lives dont turn out the way they think they should and make changes or demands at home, instead of others. Maybe give up some of the luxuries in life in exchange for paying those bills they promised to pay (not at gunpoint, by the way). Etc etc. Simple enough for you Steph????? Want me to draw you a diagram???
Anyhow to try and keep the argument going somewhere, I believe its probable that Mitt Romney will win the presidency. Im curious to hear RMHowards thought on that. I feel there are a large number of people who just dont like the president on a personal level. In our democracy, you cant ask a voter to vote for someone they dont like.
Romney accuses the President of failing the country, which i think is way wrong, but most voters in the economic climate of today,where they are, and will adjust their living means as RMHoward says, believe him.
Romney (the only republican mind you that can beat the President) will indeed bring "economic prosperity" to America. First off by cutting the minimum wage, by a lot! He will literally equalize American workers to those of the Third world.
Quote from: jerry cornwell on December 17, 2011, 05:10:10 PM
Quote from: RMHoward on December 17, 2011, 02:25:17 PM
Well, feel free to go puke all over your occupied buddies if you are sick to your tummy. As to what kind of American I am? Im the kind of American that would like to see other Americans live within their means. I would like to see Americans use some common sense when prioritizing their needs. I want to see Americans have a little restraint when offered that credit card, home loan, car loan they know they cant afford. Maybe Americans could look at themselves in the mirror when their lives dont turn out the way they think they should and make changes or demands at home, instead of others. Maybe give up some of the luxuries in life in exchange for paying those bills they promised to pay (not at gunpoint, by the way). Etc etc. Simple enough for you Steph????? Want me to draw you a diagram???
Anyhow to try and keep the argument going somewhere, I believe its probable that Mitt Romney will win the presidency. Im curious to hear RMHowards thought on that. I feel there are a large number of people who just dont like the president on a personal level. In our democracy, you cant ask a voter to vote for someone they dont like.
Romney accuses the President of failing the country, which i think is way wrong, but most voters in the economic climate of today,where they are, and will adjust their living means as RMHoward says, believe him.
Romney (the only republican mind you that can beat the President) will indeed bring "economic prosperity" to America. First off by cutting the minimum wage, by a lot! He will literally equalize American workers to those of the Third world.
it's going to be difficult to make right wing americans to decide between a black man or to them an occultist..and color is still on the minds and hearts of a hell of alot of so called americans...i know many very wealthy conservatives and they all look at pres. obama and see him handing cash out to his own...
Lets keep it rolling..... Huntsman got where he is as a big fund raiser. Stephens right, he doesnt figure in.
But when Romney picks Mario Rubio he takes Fla...... and, only because of dislike of voters, CA and NY will be real close,
TX will go red. Again, Rubio's hispanic roots will tilt the republican ticket in CA. Rubio is essential for the republicans.
Obama wins if Paul goes third party.
Does anyone really think Newt has the nomination? The SC gvnor just sunk it. Remember, republican delegates are awarded
proportionately until April 1 when winner takes all. Romney will get the nomination.
I really hope you have drawn the right conclusion and i will vote so......
I find the dislike of Congress a joke, really worthless in that while everyone despices Congress, they will still vote for their congressman, its the other voters congressman whose at fault.
I mean i dont see Crenshaw or Mica (and Corrine too) leaving WAshington. Nelson will have a tough re election here.
I do believe Elizabeth Warren stands a solid chance of winning but Mass is strong progressive.
Damn Stephen 59% is pretty strong really a landslide!
Quote from: RMHoward on December 16, 2011, 05:43:39 PM
Ummm, thats BS. When all these poverty stricken Americans give up their smart phones and flat screens, then i will believe they live in poverty. Until then.
Yes because that's what they all have. So you really need many more of your fellow citizens to live in squalor before we should give a damn. I know in my head the conservatives in this country want our labor to be competitive with the labor in Guatemala but it always shocks my heart to hear (or read) it.
Stephen doubts people vote with their wallets, we shall see. I do not believe the American public is better off 4 years later with the Hopey/Changey project, but we shall see next year!
^^ Where is the Pepper Spray??
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/6ik4f1dRbP8
We have a problem.
Quote"I snapped. I absolutely snapped and I can't explain it any other way," Chris Reichert told the Columbus Dispatch. "He's got every right to do what he did and some may say I did too, but what I did was shameful."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001186-503544.html
I know people who could tell me every horrible thing that a certain politician's organization did because it somehow personally affected them. They absolutely disliked the organization to the point they could not stand even setting near it nor do they want to give any business to it. Guess who did they vote for? Their response was they could never see themselves voting for another party. They don't know why they vote they way they do except they just have too even when they know better.
Getting them to change is like trying to get someone to loose weight or quit smoking. They know they should but they just can't. We have a problem if this keeps growing.
The problem with "youtube" arguments:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[1][2]
Also, anecdotal evidence can be inaccurate, sometimes based on anecdotes, second-hand accounts of events or hearsay.[1]
Anecdotal evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, can be used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". While the evidence is true, it does not warrant the conclusion made from it.
Conclusions made from anecdotal evidence might not be untrue, but they are unreliable because they don't follow from the evidence and might easily be incorrect.
You can also take a generalization and then search for anecdotal evidence that "confirms" it. For example "Yogurt prolongs life. I didn't believe it, but then I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."
The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.
From wikipedia
Of course, somehow my pointing out this fallacy will result in me being accused of endorsing all kinds of horrible acts depicted on youtube videos. Further proof that we really do believe what we WANT to believe. Come on admit it, we are all guilty of it.
Actually Notnow, I don't see why you have a problem with the video since it represents people acting out on the ideology that you support..............I mean don't you have a problem with "hand-outs" too?
And don't you feel you should decide whether you want to throw some money to the "unfortunates" out there rather than have the government decide?
The behavior depicted in this Youtube totally fits with your own ideology.........so you shouldn't have a problem with it at all.
That's the funny thing about people acting out their ideology for real.............all of a sudden people with the same ideology will disavow the very behavior that their ideology calls for.
Quote from: Timkin on December 17, 2011, 10:53:04 PM
^^ Where is the Pepper Spray??
Yup, never any pepper spray for the aggressive, crazy (mostly middle-aged) Tea-Party folks. But our peaceful young folks with real concerns about our economy will get pepper-sprayed in a heart beat.
Quote from: cityimrov on December 18, 2011, 12:00:38 AM
I know people who could tell me every horrible thing that a certain politician's organization did because it somehow personally affected them. They absolutely disliked the organization to the point they could not stand even setting near it nor do they want to give any business to it. Guess who did they vote for? Their response was they could never see themselves voting for another party. They don't know why they vote they way they do except they just have too even when they know better.
Getting them to change is like trying to get someone to loose weight or quit smoking. They know they should but they just can't. We have a problem if this keeps growing.
At the very least these people could just stay home rather than vote for a party that soooooo despises anyone who is no longer able-bodied.
Sen Roy Blount (R) just now said approving the keystone pipeline would bring 20,000 jobs. Approving the Presidents Job program would bring millions! Who do these republicans think they are fooling?
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 18, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
Quote from: cityimrov on December 18, 2011, 12:00:38 AM
I know people who could tell me every horrible thing that a certain politician's organization did because it somehow personally affected them. They absolutely disliked the organization to the point they could not stand even setting near it nor do they want to give any business to it. Guess who did they vote for? Their response was they could never see themselves voting for another party. They don't know why they vote they way they do except they just have too even when they know better.
Getting them to change is like trying to get someone to loose weight or quit smoking. They know they should but they just can't. We have a problem if this keeps growing.
At the very least these people could just stay home rather than vote for a party that soooooo despises anyone who is no longer able-bodied.
Suggesting not to vote? Something which almost every single media outlet says it's their "patriotic duty". Something which even this forum shows is a responsibility upon all of us? Something which there friends and family will look for that "I Voted" sticker to determine their worth?
That's even more unthinkable!
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2011, 09:20:00 PM
Who really is the Republican Base anymore?
Corporations. And since the Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are people and can pump unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, they can use all the propagandist resources at their disposal to get the tea bagger types who are so certain that all of the country's money is being spent on welfare, foreign aid and NPR to vote for the Republican candidate whose only real agenda is to lower taxes on those very corporations. When only a small percentage of the population actually votes, you only need to convince a relatively small number of dimbulbs to vote against their own interests to put you over the 51% threshold.
"Nearly 1 in 2 Americans have Fallen into Poverty"
Now is it clear why only 49% pay federal income tax?
Quote from: Garden guy on December 17, 2011, 04:44:47 PM
im amazed that americans have watched as republicans and the wealthy fuck our nation and sit back and think we should listen to anything they have to say....they steal lie cheat and the right wing idiots just smile and eat them up and buy them a dinner...what has happened to sanity?
I think here at the end of 2011 the politics revealed is just a prelude to 2012. Accordingly, everythings gonna light up next year.
Quote from: jerry cornwell on December 18, 2011, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: Garden guy on December 17, 2011, 04:44:47 PM
im amazed that americans have watched as republicans and the wealthy fuck our nation and sit back and think we should listen to anything they have to say....they steal lie cheat and the right wing idiots just smile and eat them up and buy them a dinner...what has happened to sanity?
I think here at the end of 2011 the politics revealed is just a prelude to 2012. Accordingly, everythings gonna light up next year.
I really hope the great Mayan predicted 2012 restart will bring relief for all of us in the 99%.
Let's hope the approx. 50% of the 99% that keep voting to keep the 1% in charge, will finally awaken.
Nearly 50 million Americans live in poverty.
For those that make comments about things like "smartphones and flat screens", here are the aproximate income measures of poverty
Single - below $11,000
2 Person HH - below $15,000
3 Person HH - below $18,500
4 Person HH - below $22,500
I dare you to try and live on even the 4-person income...or better yet, spend a month eating on food stamps alone.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 18, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
Nearly 50 million Americans live in poverty.
For those that make comments about things like "smartphones and flat screens", here are the aproximate income measures of poverty
Single - below $11,000
2 Person HH - below $15,000
3 Person HH - below $18,500
4 Person HH - below $22,500
I dare you to try and live on even the 4-person income...or better yet, spend a month eating on food stamps alone.
I don't get this cell phone and flat screen arguments I keep hearing. Quite a lot of phone are now basically free. If they aren't free, they are really cheap. Cell phones are now even cheaper than landlines if you go prepaid. Flat screen TV prices are dropping and dropping. I could probably get a good sized used one for a $100 - $200 if you gave me some time. This stuff is getting cheaper every year.
Now, the price of emergency room care... that's a whole different story!
Quote from: RMHoward on December 17, 2011, 02:25:17 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 06:13:26 PM
Quote from: RMHoward on December 16, 2011, 05:43:39 PM
Ummm, thats BS. When all these poverty stricken Americans give up their smart phones and flat screens, then i will believe they live in poverty. Until then.
This is the kind of sick fantasizing that makes me uninterested in the opinions of these so called conservative republicans.
Really? You would like to see Americans living in the kind of squalor that we used to associate with third world nations?
What kind of American are you anyways?
This kind of post makes me literally sick to my stomach.
Well, feel free to go puke all over your occutard buddies if you are sick to your tummy. As to what kind of American I am? Im the kind of American that would like to see other Americans live within their means. I would like to see Americans use some common sense when prioritizing their needs. I want to see Americans have a little restraint when offered that credit card, home loan, car loan they know they cant afford. Maybe Americans could look at themselves in the mirror when their lives dont turn out the way they think they should and make changes or demands at home, instead of others. Maybe give up some of the luxuries in life in exchange for paying those bills they promised to pay (not at gunpoint, by the way). Etc etc. Simple enough for you Steph????? Want me to draw you a diagram???
I just started reading this thread so I may be behind, but all I can say to you is this is why Conservatives are so beloved. I deal with your type everyday at my underpaid job because you don't give a s&*t about hard working people who lose almost everything due the greed of America. When you ask people to live within their means, does that includes not being able to afford housing, food or transportation on slightly over minimum wage hourly for working part time? People like you are the ones who treat me like dirt because I happen to have a customer service job at the moment. And you begrudge a poor person who happens to have a flat screen tv, that by the way are pretty cheap these days. And by the way cell phone are pretty much a necessity these days, and in some cases cheaper than a land line. Also most pay phones are gone so the poor can't make a call anyway. YOU and YOUR kind just want to make EVERYONE suffer who needs assistance. If that is not how you feel then PLEASE clarify your blanket statements. I deeply resent it!
And by the way, it's what you said above that makes me want to puke!
Quote from: NotNow on December 18, 2011, 04:19:24 AM
The problem with "youtube" arguments:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[1][2]
Also, anecdotal evidence can be inaccurate, sometimes based on anecdotes, second-hand accounts of events or hearsay.[1]
Anecdotal evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, can be used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". While the evidence is true, it does not warrant the conclusion made from it.
Conclusions made from anecdotal evidence might not be untrue, but they are unreliable because they don't follow from the evidence and might easily be incorrect.
You can also take a generalization and then search for anecdotal evidence that "confirms" it. For example "Yogurt prolongs life. I didn't believe it, but then I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."
The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.
From wikipedia
Of course, somehow my pointing out this fallacy will result in me being accused of endorsing all kinds of horrible acts depicted on youtube videos. Further proof that we really do believe what we WANT to believe. Come on admit it, we are all guilty of it.
I so expected this kind of response from you NotNow. You are a typical conservative.
Quote from: cityimrov on December 18, 2011, 08:09:13 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 18, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
Nearly 50 million Americans live in poverty.
For those that make comments about things like "smartphones and flat screens", here are the aproximate income measures of poverty
Single - below $11,000
2 Person HH - below $15,000
3 Person HH - below $18,500
4 Person HH - below $22,500
I dare you to try and live on even the 4-person income...or better yet, spend a month eating on food stamps alone.
I don't get this cell phone and flat screen arguments I keep hearing. Quite a lot of phone are now basically free. If they aren't free, they are really cheap. Cell phones are now even cheaper than landlines if you go prepaid. Flat screen TV prices are dropping and dropping. I could probably get a good sized used one for a $100 - $200 if you gave me some time. This stuff is getting cheaper every year.
Now, the price of emergency room care... that's a whole different story!
You are so very correct.
We force so many to use the emergency room as their healthcare provider those costs alone could probably finance O'Bama's Health care plan. It's cost a fortune to go to the ER. And all eventually pay in the end anyway, but some people are so hard core against National Health care they don't care that it would probably save us money.
Quote from: cityimrov on December 18, 2011, 08:09:13 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 18, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
Nearly 50 million Americans live in poverty.
For those that make comments about things like "smartphones and flat screens", here are the aproximate income measures of poverty
Single - below $11,000
2 Person HH - below $15,000
3 Person HH - below $18,500
4 Person HH - below $22,500
I dare you to try and live on even the 4-person income...or better yet, spend a month eating on food stamps alone.
I don't get this cell phone and flat screen arguments I keep hearing. Quite a lot of phone are now basically free. If they aren't free, they are really cheap. Cell phones are now even cheaper than landlines if you go prepaid. Flat screen TV prices are dropping and dropping. I could probably get a good sized used one for a $100 - $200 if you gave me some time. This stuff is getting cheaper every year.
Now, the price of emergency room care... that's a whole different story!
Umm... "free" cell phones usually come with some kind of catch.. like a 2year plan. I made that mistake with AT&T and got the absolute freebie which functions but is otherwise a total POS. ( don't really worry much about it being stolen) So basically you get what you pay for. Lesson learned.
ER Visits +1!! God is with you if you get by on a minimum of 1k to go to ER ( at least in my experiences) . Only to be told there was nothing they can do and I needed to go to a specialist . :o
Whew... for a second there I thought I had wandered onto the TU website. Please continue the thoughtful conversation... ::)
I haven't been in this thread but certainly watching from the corner... Poverty is relative. In the USA/EEUU poverty is living in a projects housing facility, complete with food stamps, and struggling to make the basic utility payments. While I'd agree that some of us have put our selves in that position, there is a strong and defined downward slide when more and more or our people find themselves in those conditions. As for the homeless American's, at least at this moment, if your willing to follow some rules, and really need a warm bed and a meal it can be found in most every city. Absolutely THIS IS POVERTY AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES AT THE TOP.
Contrast this with Brasil in the 1970's. Economy starting to pick up, a small but growing middle class and literally millions of homeless poor, many of them children. When your Brasilian and this happens to you you'll only have a couple of choices... The churches provide for limited assistance, but gang membership and stealing are the way to survive. Get thrown in jail and your family better show up with food and a blanket. During this time frame, (and yes I was there) in Rio and several other major cities a bounty was offered for the bodies of homeless children. Each night trucks patrolled the streets in a hunt for prey... Inhuman conditions? Absolutely! A silent holocaust was going on right below us. To this day the roof tops of Rio and rife with children living under cardboard and sheet metal lean-toos. THIS IS REAL POVERTY AT THE BOTTOM.
At least in Colombia those conditions are largely gone from the major cities. Public housing is available and it is quite attractive and modern. Medical and utilities are covered by the government for the poorest of their citizens. Thus POVERTY IN COLOMBIA IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 19, 2011, 10:58:19 AM
I haven't been in this thread but certainly watching from the corner... Poverty is relative. In the USA/EEUU poverty is living in a projects housing facility, complete with food stamps, and struggling to make the basic utility payments. While I'd agree that some of us have put our selves in that position, there is a strong and defined downward slide when more and more or our people find themselves in those conditions. As for the homeless American's, at least at this moment, if your willing to follow some rules, and really need a warm bed and a meal it can be found in most every city. Absolutely THIS IS POVERTY AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES AT THE TOP.
So why do we keep avoiding the comparison with other western nations? Maybe because we are starting to have more in common with third world countries?
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 19, 2011, 10:58:19 AMContrast this with Brasil in the 1970's. Economy starting to pick up, a small but growing middle class and literally millions of homeless poor, many of them children. When your Brasilian and this happens to you you'll only have a couple of choices... The churches provide for limited assistance, but gang membership and stealing are the way to survive. Get thrown in jail and your family better show up with food and a blanket. During this time frame, (and yes I was there) in Rio and several other major cities a bounty was offered for the bodies of homeless children. Each night trucks patrolled the streets in a hunt for prey... Inhuman conditions? Absolutely! A silent holocaust was going on right below us. To this day the roof tops of Rio and rife with children living under cardboard and sheet metal lean-toos. THIS IS REAL POVERTY AT THE BOTTOM.
This was very true.......I also remember those conditions for the abandoned children living on the streets. However things have changes dramatically in Brazil. By no means has poverty been eradicated, but the percentage of people living is squalor has dropped enormously in the past decade whereas in the US it continues to climb:
(http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/brazil-poverty.jpg)
The priority in the US for the past decades shockingly has been to enrich the 1%, whereas Brazil is starting to look decidedly more civilized as their middle class grows and ours is eviserated:
(http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/Brazil-v-US-inequality.png)
http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=1329
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 19, 2011, 10:58:19 AMAt least in Colombia those conditions are largely gone from the major cities. Public housing is available and it is quite attractive and modern. Medical and utilities are covered by the government for the poorest of their citizens. Thus POVERTY IN COLOMBIA IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.
What they are doing in Colombia with public transportation and national healthcare is indeed remarkable by all accounts.
All justifications or denialist arguments regarding poverty in the US are out of order. No person in a western type advanced nation should go hungry, and indeed they don't in western European nations. However the US shamefully has only a disfunctional patchwork of supports in place to combat poverty.
Further evidence that Republicans want the US to be a third-world country:
At this week’s debate for Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich emphasized one of his favorite subjects: his disgust for the federal judiciary. The disgraced former House Speaker warned of “an uprising†against the courts, adding that he’s “prepared to take on the judiciary†unless federal courts start issuing rulings he agrees with. He went on to say he understands these issues “better than lawyers,†because he’s “a historian.â€
Saturday, Gingrich hosted a conference call with reporters and went even further, sketching out his vision for policymakers literally ignoring federal court rulings. Referencing Supreme Court findings on the handling of suspected terrorist detainees, for example, Gingrich said, “A commander in chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander in chief to protect the country.â€
Gingrich went on to describe “the rule of two of three†â€" a made-up rule with no foundation in American law â€" in which two branches of government could out-vote the other one.
He wasn’t kidding, by the way.
This led CBS’s Bob Schieffer to ask Gingrich a good question on “Face the Nation†Sunday morning.
SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.
Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.
I hope it’s unnecessary to note that Gingrich’s vision is stark raving mad.
I’ll just conclude with this observation: Newt Gingrich believes Barack Obama is a wild-eyed fanatic, guided by an extremist ideology, hell bent on overseeing a radical overhaul of the American system of government.
The irony is rich.
Quote from: finehoe on December 19, 2011, 03:01:18 PM
Further evidence that Republicans want the US to be a third-world country:
At this week’s debate for Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich emphasized one of his favorite subjects: his disgust for the federal judiciary. The disgraced former House Speaker warned of “an uprising†against the courts, adding that he’s “prepared to take on the judiciary†unless federal courts start issuing rulings he agrees with. He went on to say he understands these issues “better than lawyers,†because he’s “a historian.â€
Saturday, Gingrich hosted a conference call with reporters and went even further, sketching out his vision for policymakers literally ignoring federal court rulings. Referencing Supreme Court findings on the handling of suspected terrorist detainees, for example, Gingrich said, “A commander in chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander in chief to protect the country.â€
Gingrich went on to describe “the rule of two of three†â€" a made-up rule with no foundation in American law â€" in which two branches of government could out-vote the other one.
He wasn’t kidding, by the way.
This led CBS’s Bob Schieffer to ask Gingrich a good question on “Face the Nation†Sunday morning.
SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.
Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.
I hope it’s unnecessary to note that Gingrich’s vision is stark raving mad.
I’ll just conclude with this observation: Newt Gingrich believes Barack Obama is a wild-eyed fanatic, guided by an extremist ideology, hell bent on overseeing a radical overhaul of the American system of government.
The irony is rich.
Wow - who knew Gingrich had so much in common with Hugo Chavez?
Bush has most likely permanently damaged the Republican brand. If Newt wins the nomination I predict you will see enough Republicans jump ship to form a competitive third party.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 19, 2011, 03:29:59 PM
Bush has most likely permanently damaged the Republican brand. If Newt wins the nomination I predict you will see enough Republicans jump ship to form a competitive third party.
Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years. Are we adequately represented by Democrats and Republicans? If the Tea Partiers could continue to exert pressure on the politicians, and the Occupy movement could continue to exert pressure on the corporations, and if they could move away from the Democrat and Republican 'tents' so that they don't get usurped by the people that just want to divide power between the two major parties, that might go a long way toward making government more responsive to the People. (Apologies for the run-on sentence).
Occupiers and Tea Partiers would seem to make strange bedfellows, but it appears to me that they could agree that the 'one percenters' that exert influence over politicians (Wall Street, banks, big corporations, Koch Brothers, Obama's bundlers, George Soros), and politicians who use their power to pick winners and engage in crony capitalism (Solyndra, Community Reinvestment Act, deregulation, Haliburton) are all at the heart of our current economic problems. We deserve better than a bunch of politicians who serve themselves and their parties first, and their constituents and their country second or worse.
Or is it just me?
QuoteIdeally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.
Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! :D
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 19, 2011, 07:12:24 PM
QuoteIdeally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.
Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! :D
That is the best post of the month.
Quote from: finehoe on December 19, 2011, 03:01:18 PM
This led CBS’s Bob Schieffer to ask Gingrich a good question on “Face the Nation†Sunday morning.
SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.
If Romney doesnt eat him alive, Obama will! This will freak out moderate Republicans, and all sane republicans.
Actually he is eating himself alive.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 19, 2011, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 19, 2011, 07:12:24 PM
QuoteIdeally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.
Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! :D
That is the best post of the month.
No.. This is !! ;)
M-train ... You're Fired ! :P
(edit: Just so you know M-train , I am kidding )
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 19, 2011, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 19, 2011, 07:12:24 PM
QuoteIdeally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.
Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! :D
That is the best post of the month.
Oh my - definitely not where I was going with that! I'll file that under "be careful what you wish for." :D
Quote from: Ajax on December 19, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 19, 2011, 03:29:59 PM
Bush has most likely permanently damaged the Republican brand. If Newt wins the nomination I predict you will see enough Republicans jump ship to form a competitive third party.
Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years. Are we adequately represented by Democrats and Republicans? If the Tea Partiers could continue to exert pressure on the politicians, and the Occupy movement could continue to exert pressure on the corporations, and if they could move away from the Democrat and Republican 'tents' so that they don't get usurped by the people that just want to divide power between the two major parties, that might go a long way toward making government more responsive to the People. (Apologies for the run-on sentence).
Occupiers and Tea Partiers would seem to make strange bedfellows, but it appears to me that they could agree that the 'one percenters' that exert influence over politicians (Wall Street, banks, big corporations, Koch Brothers, Obama's bundlers, George Soros), and politicians who use their power to pick winners and engage in crony capitalism (Solyndra, Community Reinvestment Act, deregulation, Haliburton) are all at the heart of our current economic problems. We deserve better than a bunch of politicians who serve themselves and their parties first, and their constituents and their country second or worse.
Or is it just me?
With Paul doing as he is, you have your third party candidate. Of course, he strives for the Republican nomination. So, if he gets the nomination, does that defeat the 3rd party argument in America?
Quote from: jerry cornwell on December 20, 2011, 09:54:52 AM
With Paul doing as he is, you have your third party candidate. Of course, he strives for the Republican nomination. So, if he gets the nomination, does that defeat the 3rd party argument in America?
I can't imagine Paul getting the Republican nomination. If he were to win the Iowa caucus, the knives would really come out. Right now, the various conservative commentators (Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, Levin, etc.) are trying to either ignore Paul or convince everyone that he is unelectable. Or that he's an idiot.
I think it shows some promise that a 3rd party candidate can compete, but I don't think Paul or any other 3rd party candidate would have a chance in the general election - especially given the war chest that Obama has to play with. Paul has a large number of loyal supporters, but he doesn't have the infrastructure that the Republicans and Democrats have built over the years.
I don't think Paul would have gotten as much attention if he hadn't been allowed to participate in the Republican debates and straw polls. So he's getting some use of their infrastructure, but he's running without the support of the GOP leadership. He's still marginalized, since many of his views are in opposition to mainstream Republicans. The GOP's mouthpiece, Fox News is downplaying Paul and even had one of their pundits (Chris Wallace) say (right before a debate that Wallace helped moderate) that if Paul were to win the Iowa caucus it wouldn't count, and it would discredit the Iowa voters.
So I suppose that's what happens if you run under the 'big tent' but you don't follow the party line.
Besides, to have a true 3rd (or 4th) party in this country, they would need viable candidates for offices other than the President. In Congress - we have well over 500 members and only two are Independents. The rest identify themselves as Democrat or Republican. They have their own Congressional Caucus groups, but I believe they're kept in line for the most part by their party leaders. So really, a 3rd party president would only be able to do so much.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ekJkbf9PwhM/TvEJ_f5o3gI/AAAAAAAATt8/EH-4AS_ISTA/s640/faminc205095.png)
Quote from: finehoe on December 20, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ekJkbf9PwhM/TvEJ_f5o3gI/AAAAAAAATt8/EH-4AS_ISTA/s640/faminc205095.png)
Could you post a link?
Quote from: finehoe on December 20, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ekJkbf9PwhM/TvEJ_f5o3gI/AAAAAAAATt8/EH-4AS_ISTA/s640/faminc205095.png)
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//11-28-11pov-f1.jpg
In contrast, those (corporate personhood) most able to pay taxes, are paying less and less..............starving the federal government of much needed revenue and thus creating deficits:
(http://prorev.com/1107TAXCOMP.jpg)
National Priorities..........
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 19, 2011, 11:32:49 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 19, 2011, 10:58:19 AM
I haven't been in this thread but certainly watching from the corner... Poverty is relative. In the USA/EEUU poverty is living in a projects housing facility, complete with food stamps, and struggling to make the basic utility payments. While I'd agree that some of us have put our selves in that position, there is a strong and defined downward slide when more and more or our people find themselves in those conditions. As for the homeless American's, at least at this moment, if your willing to follow some rules, and really need a warm bed and a meal it can be found in most every city. Absolutely THIS IS POVERTY AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES AT THE TOP.
So why do we keep avoiding the comparison with other western nations? Maybe because we are starting to have more in common with third world countries?
I think in many ways the so-called 3rd world has already left us by the side of the road. Honestly, I went back to Colombia, expecting the 3rd world, and 'found it' when I got back to Jacksonville. No argument from me on these points Faye, I also see our country and the Latin American countries like two speeding trains going in different directions. While one can still find some of those conditions I outlined south of the border, stepping over the dead guy on the sidewalk in Aquatalia is becoming a rarity. I think we're on the same page here Faye, while we may not have 2,000 people living in the trail ridge landfill, we seem determined to get there.
OCKLAWAHA
Inequality in modern-day America is worse than Ancient Rome
The 99 percent has found an ally 2,500 years in the past. It just so happens that it’s with those that found themselves in the Ancient Roman plebian and slave classes.
According to research done recently by historians Walter Schiedel and Steven Friesen, the income inequality gap in modern day America is far greater than the separation within the societies during the days of Julius Caesar. During the Ancient Roman Republic, says the duo’s study published in Per Square Mile, the top one percent controlled 16 percent of society’s wealth. If you fire up the Delorean and go from the Diocletian Empire to twenty-first century USA, you’ll see that things are a little more uneven. Today, that one percent on top controls 40 percent of the country’s wealth.
What difference does a few dozen centuries make, though? Emperors back then had a trained arsenal of soldiers equipped with on equines with hand-trebuchets, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg today calls the NYPD his own army (who come with Tasers and pepper-spray on the ready). Want more? Today the top one percent saw their incomes rise by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007. Back then, well, back then the Romans saw the rise of the Constantine. Neither, frankly, was all that pretty.
Historical humor aside, the narrowing of America’s middle class and rise of poverty has been a long time in the making, even if just become more obvious in recent times thanks in part of course to the Occupy Wall Street movement’s pressing for reform. While 50 million Americans are currently living below the poverty line, in all one-in-two Americans are what the US Census Bureau calls “low-income.†In Washington DC, which is part of the wealthiest metropolitan region per-capital in the country, one-in-ten residents actually earns less than half of what would put them at the poverty line, creating an entire new class of the poorest of the poor which is only increasing as the wealth is torpedoed upwards to the top of the pyramid.
In coming up with their research, Schiedel and Friesen mulled over papyri ledgers, old school estimates and Biblical passages, specifically at around the times when the Roman Empire was at its population peak â€" around 150 C.E. Putting together the top members of the hierarchy around that times â€" the patricians, senators, equestrians and decuriones â€" the researchers have determined that the top 1.5 percent of the 70 million or so citizens of the empire had all-in-all around 20 percent of the wealth.
Despite this inequality, there was never an Occupy the Aqueducts movement or a tent city within the walls of the Coliseum â€" as far as we know, at least. Instead, rather, those that didn’t match up with the leading ranks were simply disregarded. As Per Square Mile puts it, the empire seems to have been “built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers,†adding, “it’s as though Rome’s 99 percent never existed.â€
Sounds like something right out of Fox News.
http://rt.com/usa/news/inequality-ancient-percent-empire-287
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 21, 2011, 08:55:49 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 20, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ekJkbf9PwhM/TvEJ_f5o3gI/AAAAAAAATt8/EH-4AS_ISTA/s640/faminc205095.png)
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//11-28-11pov-f1.jpg
In contrast, those (corporate personhood) most able to pay taxes, are paying less and less..............starving the federal government of much needed revenue and thus creating deficits:
(http://prorev.com/1107TAXCOMP.jpg)
National Priorities
National Priorities..........
While Republicans always whine about government spending............they rarely point to the most obvious cause of our budget deficit: the fact that government revenues have dropped significantly because the ultra-rich and corporations are paying less and less taxes and thus are not contributing their fair share of government revenues:
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/Conrad1.jpg)
Associated Press,
Taxes (as a Percentage of Economy) Drop to Lowest Level in 60 Years:
Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/02/ap-taxes-.html
A 2010 Diane Sawyer piece on poverty in America, for the denialist Republicans amongst us. Poverty visualized:
http://www.youtube.com/v/GO5b_FwR5HU?