[quote]nephorm wrote:
DPH: ‘Poor’ in America is vastly different from poor in other countries. ‘Poor’ in America generally means that you still have plenty of food to eat, a car, a TV, and indoor plumbing.[/quote]
good point…
in how many other countries can a poor person weigh 300 lbs?
too bad it doesn’t also mean health care for all poor kids under the age of eighteen (I’m not suggesting universal health care)…
Yeah, I have to chime in with this, because I think it’s important.
The poor people don’t necessarily need to have a cash siphon attached to the government, but it IS in our best interests to make it easier for these people to be more productive and earn more money.
Why?
BECAUSE THEY SHARE THE TAX BURDEN THAT WAY!
As long as they remain poor, they simply are a tax burden. We need to put on our thinking caps and figure out how to make more people successful, instead of get angry about the fact that they exist and cost us money.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yeah, I have to chime in with this, because I think it’s important.
The poor people don’t necessarily need to have a cash siphon attached to the government, but it IS in our best interests to make it easier for these people to be more productive and earn more money.
Why?
BECAUSE THEY SHARE THE TAX BURDEN THAT WAY!
As long as they remain poor, they simply are a tax burden. We need to put on our thinking caps and figure out how to make more people successful, instead of get angry about the fact that they exist and cost us money.[/quote]
Not a bad point.
Or we could just eat them.
[quote]grew7 wrote:
Or we could just eat them.[/quote]
Read Johnathon Swift much?
It certainly seems that there has been a change in US politics over the last decade or so. There has been a change in the Repiblican party, moving right, and the democrats doing, well, very little.
It has been the view of some UK political analysts thatthe democrats should take that middle right ground vacated by the republicans, spreading their appeal.
Now, whilst this may not iclude things like right for life etc, there is plenty such as fiscial policy and “small govt” (whatever that is supposed to be, i dont think i have ever seen it…parkinsons rule means that it never happens). The labour party did this, when the government of the time (Tory/conservative) was tired, and moving right further,
The socialist labour party have come in, moved right a bit, and have left no room for diferentiaition between he parties.
Is it the case that there is little between the 2 parties, or is there enough room for this to happen.
Or does it need a unifying leader (as we have leaders of the opposition here) to rally the party around 1 message. Can that happen at all?
recently i have been doing my best to stay out of political threads, but here i go:
i am soooooo tired of all the internet smarty-pants on BOTH sides posting stats, studies, and quoting form books and articles etc. it really is boring me. no matter how much stuff one side puts up, the other side can counter it with equal amounts of bullshit.
personally, i have to admit, i distrust both parties, i think democrats are just as much big corporate pawns as republicans, and republicans are just as much fiscally big spenders and irrisponsible as democrats.
most people will side with whatever party spits out the ideology they agree with, and then make excuses and rationalizations for the stupid things that party does, and vilify the same for the other party.
me? well, i suffered financially during the clinton years. though that was supposed to be the best economy EVER for the USA if you belive the left.
now i am doing better than ever, and supposedly this is the worst economy ever.
does that mean clinton screwed me while helping everybody else? and bush is helping me out and screwing the rest of you people??? haha doubt it. truth is as i see it, the party in office has little to do with my bank account, other forces that run our economy do.
i am no fan of bush, hell, did not like his dad and voted against him twice. i did not vote at all in 2000 cuz i was so pissed that mccain was not on the republican ticket i sat out in protest, lol.
i hated clinton when in office, for many reasons, the main reason is that whenver he spoke, i got the feeling i was being worked somehow.
funny though, now that he is out of office, i like a lot of the things he(clinton) has to say.
hey, whatever, if you all really think that the guy in the white house makes that big of a difference, good for you. me, i am just not convinced. but at some point you got to check yourselves. i work in the san franciso bay area, and 2/3 ofthe people i know here if they wake up in the morning and trip over their own feet and bust their head open, i fucking SWEAR they will blame it on GW. i am NOT kidding.
give me a fucking break.
ps i know i cant spell for shit. so fuck you in advance 
[quote]nephorm wrote:
DPH: ‘Poor’ in America is vastly different from poor in other countries. ‘Poor’ in America generally means that you still have plenty of food to eat, a car, a TV, and indoor plumbing.[/quote]
Further to Nephorm’s point:
Poor America
By DOUGLAS BESHAROV
March 24, 2006; Page A10
Each year the Census Bureau calculates the nation’s poverty rate, based on the number of people with incomes below the official poverty line, about $20,000 for a family of four in 2004. Since last year’s poverty rate of 12.7% was essentially equal to the 1968 rate of 12.8%, it seems that little progress has been made. But many analysts – on the right and the left – have pointed out that, by many other measures, poor people’s physical and material well-being is considerably better now than in the late '60s. How else to explain why so many poor now have color TV (93%) and air conditioning (50%), and own their own homes (46%)?
While many have proposed revising the official poverty measure, getting agreement is about as likely as Bush carrying Manhattan. The poverty line or its multiple is the basis of eligibility for dozens of government antipoverty programs, involving the distributions of hundreds of billions of dollars. Change it – up or down – and hundreds of thousands of people gain or lose benefits.
That’s what makes a new data series by the Census Bureau, “The Effects of Government Taxes and Transfers on Income and Poverty: 2004,” so significant. Developed after nine months of meetings between outside experts and senior government officials from the Census Bureau and other federal agencies, it allows us to get a better view of the resources available to low-income Americans.
First, the series gets a better fix on “market income” poverty – poverty before taxes and means-tested transfers like cash welfare. (Although the Census Bureau counts it separately, Social Security, like pensions, is included as market income since it is “earned” during one’s working years.) Now we can use the correct inflation adjustment, count the income of cohabitors and coresidents, and include the implicit income of home ownership. (The last mostly affects the elderly.) Finally, adding in government estimates of unreported income results in a market income poverty rate of about 7.9%, not the official rate of 12.7%. Second, as suggested by the name of the new data series, government transfer programs also reduce financial need. Taking into account welfare payments, food stamps and housing assistance (noncash benefits are presently not counted) results in a poverty rate of about 5.1% – and even this excludes the value of Medicaid for the poor, roughly $2,000 per person.
Even with these calculations, about 15 million people are below the poverty line and millions more just above it. But the broader point must not be lost: Millions of low-income Americans are living better lives than they did before. Period.
Mr. Besharov is the Jacobs scholar in social welfare studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
[quote]recently i have been doing my best to stay out of political threads, but here i go:
[/quote]
Too much cortisol when you hang out down here?
[quote]vroom wrote:
recently i have been doing my best to stay out of political threads, but here i go:
Too much cortisol when you hang out down here? ;)[/quote]
lol
Hasn’t the growth in poverty been mostly been the illegal immigrants?
They come to America, live below the poverty line and still have it better than they did in their home country.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Hasn’t the growth in poverty been mostly been the illegal immigrants?
They come to America, live below the poverty line and still have it better than they did in their home country.[/quote]
I have been to a third world country. It was only for a short time but it was enough to make me grateful for showers and hard wood floors. Living “better” than that isn’t saying much at all.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Republicans have always been a big tent – at least in my lifetime, and I’m 31. The Dems enforce party-line discipline on their hot-button issues – when is the last time you saw a nationally prominent pro-life Democrat? Any ever speak at conventions? How about on the Republican side of the aisle? Do the names Giuliani or Schwarzenegger ring any bells?
And that’s just one issue. I’m sure with just a little thinking we could list a bunch more issues in which there is serious intraparty debate on the Republican side of the aisle, while no dissent is tolerated with the Dems.
Yet somehow its zealots on the Republican side that have taken over the party?
Listen, I’m not getting all I want from the party in power at the moment – not by any stretch of the imagination. But I don’t think pointing to one subgroup of the big tent has any particular bearing regarding the fact that some group or other has taken over the party.[/quote]
Not to many blacks in your big tent, are there?
For most people, their view on the world is based on facts. Yours isn’t.
You THINK the Dems enforce party-line discipline, therefore you tune out anything that doesn’t go well with this view.
You seem te be fairely interested in politics. How else can you explain to not notice Harry Reid and Bob Casey Jr. To tell you the truth, I don’t know much about US internal politics, so I don’t know either of them.
Anyway, your challenge has been met.
Now it’s our turn.
About enforcing party-line.
When was the last time the dems ratted out someone’s wife for being an undercover CIA agent, just to get back at her husband for not finding the evidence they needed?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Hasn’t the growth in poverty been mostly been the illegal immigrants?
They come to America, live below the poverty line and still have it better than they did in their home country.[/quote]
doubtful, difficult to get poverty data on illegals, so the poverty number is probably understated
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The Republicans have always been a big tent – at least in my lifetime, and I’m 31. The Dems enforce party-line discipline on their hot-button issues – when is the last time you saw a nationally prominent pro-life Democrat? Any ever speak at conventions? How about on the Republican side of the aisle? Do the names Giuliani or Schwarzenegger ring any bells?
And that’s just one issue. I’m sure with just a little thinking we could list a bunch more issues in which there is serious intraparty debate on the Republican side of the aisle, while no dissent is tolerated with the Dems.
Yet somehow its zealots on the Republican side that have taken over the party?
Listen, I’m not getting all I want from the party in power at the moment – not by any stretch of the imagination. But I don’t think pointing to one subgroup of the big tent has any particular bearing regarding the fact that some group or other has taken over the party.
Wreckless wrote:
Not to many blacks in your big tent, are there?
For most people, their view on the world is based on facts. Yours isn’t.
You THINK the Dems enforce party-line discipline, therefore you tune out anything that doesn’t go well with this view.
You seem te be fairely interested in politics. How else can you explain to not notice Harry Reid and Bob Casey Jr. To tell you the truth, I don’t know much about US internal politics, so I don’t know either of them.
Anyway, your challenge has been met.
Now it’s our turn.
About enforcing party-line.
When was the last time the dems ratted out someone’s wife for being an undercover CIA agent, just to get back at her husband for not finding the evidence they needed?[/quote]
No, it hasn’t been met. I guess you didn’t bother reading my response to ol’ Brad’s posts.
Anyway, given your response on the “blacks as Republicans” thread, I’m completely not surprised by your comment on the big tent.
As for your repetition of the canard on the Plame stupidity, you should read up on that too.
You are long on opinion and short on fact – true to form.
[quote]elliot007 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Hasn’t the growth in poverty been mostly been the illegal immigrants?
They come to America, live below the poverty line and still have it better than they did in their home country.
doubtful, difficult to get poverty data on illegals, so the poverty number is probably understated
[/quote]
I just saw something on TV the other day. The number of people below the poverty line is growing.
3% growth among white people
5% growth among black people
no mention of Asians
Hispanics accounted for the overwhelming majority. They did not have statistics on who was legal and who was illegal but the increase of people under the poverty line coorelates closely with the estimated numbers of illegal immigrants.
This makes perfect sense to me that the growing poor population is mostly due to poor people streaming across the border.
the poverty rate was declining under clinton while the illegal population was growing