Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on September 13, 2011, 04:11:02 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-poverty-rate-household-income/story?id=14508084
U.S. Poverty Rate Up, Household Income Down
An estimated 46.2 million Americans lived in poverty last year, or 15.1 percent, the highest rate since 1993, new data from the Census Bureau released today showed.
Median household income declined at the same time and the number of people without health insurance coverage rose, highlighting the consequences of the recent recession.
I fear, at this point, that we can only Hope that there is no more Change like this.
-
The way the poverty rate is defined is fundamentally flawed, as it does not determine the number of people who can't afford basic necessities (the way people think it works) but rather defines it based on relationship with median and average incomes--thus ensuring that the more active the economy (rising wages and productivity, higher incomes, etc) the higher the poverty %--regardless of the actual purchasing ability of the "poor". It also sets a rate that doesn't include non-cash government support, tax credits, and other aspects which further skews the results. In other words (there is a great article in this by the Cato institute), the way the "poverty line" is calculated, there will always be poor, and the number will et larger--to encourage government spending. For instance, if the true GDP and median income were tripled overnight, the poverty rate (fraction below the poverty line) would remain constant, even though everyone true (inflation adjusted) purchasing power tripled.
-
Ah, so, in other words, the relationship between income level and poverty level is elastic?
Would this not be the same, then, as if the poverty level was a percent of income; an increase in income level would reflect an increase in the poverty level?
-
Ah, so, in other words, the relationship between income level and poverty level is elastic?
Would this not be the same, then, as if the poverty level was a percent of income; an increase in income level would reflect an increase in the poverty level?
Yes, an increase in income is an increase in the poverty line...however, why does that mean those people are impoverished? Using my analogy of tripling the real income and purchasing power (or correspondingly, reducing by a factor of three the costs of goods), people who were truly impoverished (cannot afford basic necessities) now can afford them, but would still be classified as "poor" and "in need of assistance" which changes the associated programs from a societal safety net, to pure redistribution.
-
Because the measure of social justice is not whether the poor are healthy, educated and secure. Instead, it is measured by how much more the wealthy have than they do.
-
Because the measure of social justice is not whether the poor are healthy, educated and secure. Instead, it is measured by how much more the wealthy have than they do.
DING DING DING DING DING.
Who cares if the "poor" in this country are better off than over 80% of the world and have conveniences that even the richest in the world would have never had but 50 years ago. Some people have EVEN MORE than that!!! Thus, they are oppressed.
-
Who cares if the "poor" in this country are better off than over 80% of the world and have conveniences that even the richest in the world would have never had but 50 years ago. Some people have EVEN MORE than that!!! Thus, they are oppressed.
This. Take note of how many "poor" people do their whining on an iPhone while driving a nice car...and whine about how they people they saw on their HDTV have so much more than they do.
We're still watching a 19" CRT TV, no cable, no satellite, driving paid-off cars and just upgraded to Samsung Replenish (Android with a keyboard) phones to knock $20/mo off our bills.
-
You are doing better that we are.
Our cell phones are just for....talking.
$30 per month per phone for the 'data package'?
I'll pass on cruising the Interwebkins on a chicklet-sized screen.....
-
$30 per month per phone for the 'data package'?
Our price was a package deal for everything with no breakdown, but cheaper than we were paying for less with AT&T. Since my wife takes two classes a week three hours away and she's also working part time as a virtual sourcing assistant we needed a good data plan anyway. (In a pinch, she can actually do that job entirely on the phone, though it will take 6-8 times as long to get anything done on the tiny keyboard.)
-
You are doing better that we are.
Our cell phones are just for....talking.
$30 per month per phone for the 'data package'?
I'll pass on cruising the Interwebkins on a chicklet-sized screen.....
Ditto. I have a Tracfone - costs me under $7/month.
-
And, no, I don't text, either. That is why Al Gore made the Interwebkins, and created email and spam.
-
And, no, I don't text, either. That is why Al Gore made the Interwebkins, and created email and spam.
It actually can be handy, if the sender and receiver both have phones that are set up for it (have a keyboard of some kind).
-
I also missed a couple of the other big benefits; wife tends to get lost in odd places and call me with problems like "I see a tree and an Exxon station, how do I get home from here?" (Note that the last town she remembers passing through is 80 miles from home, and the only directions she understands are left and right. I tend to give direction in the small-town tradition of reference points based on where things used to be, so it makes for an interesting conversation.) Google Maps on a GPS-enabled phone is great for driving directions, (OSMDroid is far better if you need bike paths, though) and it's simple enough for her to figure out on the fly. Failing that, she can check in with Latitude and then I can find her on a map. Voice-enabled Google Shopping makes it easy to see if an item is a good deal, and voice-enabled Google Search helps you search for obscenity-laden phrases when you step in cat barf barefoot while staring at the phone screen.
On the more fun side, Google Sky Maps with a position sensor is really cool; hold the phone up and it shows the right section of sky with the stars labeled.
-
Stop the tease.....
-
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At that time:
DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
Unemployment rate was 4.6%
The 2007 Annual Budget deficit was $161.5 Billion dollars.
Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
ON THAT DAY, JANUARY 3RD 2007:
Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee.
Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!
The Current Annual Budget deficit is $1.5 Trillion Dollars.
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was Financially risky for the US economy):
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac???? OBAMA !
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie??? OBAMA.
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore), 45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as
President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter), 39th. President, Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981
Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
Answer: That’s right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
I got this in an email last year, I doubt this is the change that was hoped for.