Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Another indication that this recession long-term. I find it interesting that the poverty level is $22,000 for a family of four. People who make $22,000/year should have a family of one. The article also quotes a Heritage Foundation spokesperson who makes the point that many of our "impoverished" live in decent sized houses, own a car, and have big screen TV's.

US poverty on track to rise to highest since 1960s
US poverty on track to reach 46-year high; suburbs, underemployed workers, children hit hard

By Hope Yen, Associated Press | Associated Press – 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ranks of America's poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.
Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections.
The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-povert ... 9.html?l=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not that many of us would sign up for poverty in any country, but it is better to be impoverished in a rich country like this than in a third world country. I mean, I'm far above the poverty threshold and I don't even own a big screen TV (I am cheap though, and my kids haven't broken the existing TV's despite my encouragement to play baseball directly in front of them).

As for the impact of the recession, it's not shocking - if people can't get jobs, plenty of people are going to suffer. The economy sucks right now, and there's no real sign of it getting substantially better any time soon. Limping along doesn't help to keep many from slipping back towards poverty, unfortunately.

GannonFan wrote:Not that many of us would sign up for poverty in any country, but it is better to be impoverished in a rich country like this than in a third world country. I mean, I'm far above the poverty threshold and I don't even own a big screen TV (I am cheap though, and my kids haven't broken the existing TV's despite my encouragement to play baseball directly in front of them).

As for the impact of the recession, it's not shocking - if people can't get jobs, plenty of people are going to suffer. The economy sucks right now, and there's no real sign of it getting substantially better any time soon. Limping along doesn't help to keep many from slipping back towards poverty, unfortunately.

Did you see the housing market news from last week? There is some good news.

D1B wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Not that many of us would sign up for poverty in any country, but it is better to be impoverished in a rich country like this than in a third world country. I mean, I'm far above the poverty threshold and I don't even own a big screen TV (I am cheap though, and my kids haven't broken the existing TV's despite my encouragement to play baseball directly in front of them).

As for the impact of the recession, it's not shocking - if people can't get jobs, plenty of people are going to suffer. The economy sucks right now, and there's no real sign of it getting substantially better any time soon. Limping along doesn't help to keep many from slipping back towards poverty, unfortunately.

Did you see the housing market news from last week? There is some good news.

It's not that there isn't some good news, of course there is some. Problem is, there's plenty of bad news to go along with it. And even if we work out the issues coming Jan 1 2013, the damage there has already been done. We might even technically slip back into a recession. although a relative short one. And we're still to deal with the massive issues at the state and local levels. I'd love for the future to look rosier, problem is, it just doesn't look that way in the short term right now.

GannonFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

Did you see the housing market news from last week? There is some good news.

It's not that there isn't some good news, of course there is some. Problem is, there's plenty of bad news to go along with it. And even if we work out the issues coming Jan 1 2013, the damage there has already been done. We might even technically slip back into a recession. although a relative short one. And we're still to deal with the massive issues at the state and local levels. I'd love for the future to look rosier, problem is, it just doesn't look that way in the short term right now.

Fair points.

The reason people at the poverty level live better than how it would appear is because of the assistance provided for living expenses.

A single person with two children making $14,000 a year with a $6000 housing voucher, $3000 in food stamps and $7000 income tax "refund" (which is when most of the big screens are bought ) lives like they make $30,000 which of course isn't great but it isn't $14,000 either. Now before you jump all over me, I am not opposed except that I think the tax "refund" should be some other form of assistance. The tax code doesn't look at all income to determine what a person should get. Child support isn't counted like it would be in other assitance, etc. So we do a pretty good job making life better but not great.

My concern is though for someone at that income level there isn't much incentive to do better. For every extra dollar they, they lose probably 80 cents in assistance. So this person has to double their income before they really start to see any benefit. While I say that is a problem, I will be the first to admit I am not sure what to do about,

OL FU wrote:The reason people at the poverty level live better than how it would appear is because of the assistance provided for living expenses.

A single person with two children making $14,000 a year with a $6000 housing voucher, $3000 in food stamps and $7000 income tax "refund" (which is when most of the big screens are bought ) lives like they make $30,000 which of course isn't great but it isn't $14,000 either. Now before you jump all over me, I am not opposed except that I think the tax "refund" should be some other form of assistance. The tax code doesn't look at all income to determine what a person should get. Child support isn't counted like it would be in other assitance, etc. So we do a pretty good job making life better but not great.

My concern is though for someone at that income level there isn't much incentive to do better. For every extra dollar they, they lose probably 80 cents in assistance. So this person has to double their income before they really start to see any benefit. While I say that is a problem, I will be the first to admit I am not sure what to do about,

Exactly.

There is not a state in the union where a minimum wage worker working a 40 hour week can afford a two bedroom apartment.

OL FU wrote:The reason people at the poverty level live better than how it would appear is because of the assistance provided for living expenses.

A single person with two children making $14,000 a year with a $6000 housing voucher, $3000 in food stamps and $7000 income tax "refund" (which is when most of the big screens are bought ) lives like they make $30,000 which of course isn't great but it isn't $14,000 either. Now before you jump all over me, I am not opposed except that I think the tax "refund" should be some other form of assistance. The tax code doesn't look at all income to determine what a person should get. Child support isn't counted like it would be in other assitance, etc. So we do a pretty good job making life better but not great.

My concern is though for someone at that income level there isn't much incentive to do better. For every extra dollar they, they lose probably 80 cents in assistance. So this person has to double their income before they really start to see any benefit. While I say that is a problem, I will be the first to admit I am not sure what to do about,

Strong post.

Solution - provide opportunities with time limits and stiff penalties for not taking advantage of them. Also we need to start the discussion about mandatory birth control, sterilization and forced labor camps.

GannonFan wrote:Not that many of us would sign up for poverty in any country, but it is better to be impoverished in a rich country like this than in a third world country. I mean, I'm far above the poverty threshold and I don't even own a big screen TV (I am cheap though, and my kids haven't broken the existing TV's despite my encouragement to play baseball directly in front of them).

As for the impact of the recession, it's not shocking - if people can't get jobs, plenty of people are going to suffer. The economy sucks right now, and there's no real sign of it getting substantially better any time soon. Limping along doesn't help to keep many from slipping back towards poverty, unfortunately.

You mean developing country.

1st World = Developed country

2nd World = Communist country. Not many of those around anymore

3rd World = Now called Developing country or underdeveloped country.

Government should not even be in the business of defining "poverty." That fact that it's doing it is associated with the fact that it is getting way too involved in trying to manage things. A lot of other measures are like that too. GDP. Unemployment rate, etc. The fact that we hear those numbers is a result of the fact that the government is trying to manage things to too great an extent.

Government should not be considered responsible for how many people are in "poverty," what the GDP is, what the unemployment rate is, etc.

Now, it won't change. That's our culture now. We'll watch the numbers and assign blame or credit to the particular set of politicians in charge. But it's a shame that we even think of them as responsible for things like that.

kalm wrote: The article also quotes a Heritage Foundation spokesperson who makes the point that many of our "impoverished" live in decent sized houses, own a car, and have big screen TV's.

My acquaintance from Jalisco Mexico once stated "I'd love to be poor in America". Air conditioning was it for him. and bonanza steakhouse - he loved that place.

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

JohnStOnge wrote:Government should not even be in the business of defining "poverty." That fact that it's doing it is associated with the fact that it is getting way too involved in trying to manage things. A lot of other measures are like that too. GDP. Unemployment rate, etc. The fact that we hear those numbers is a result of the fact that the government is trying to manage things to too great an extent.

Government should not be considered responsible for how many people are in "poverty," what the GDP is, what the unemployment rate is, etc.

Now, it won't change. That's our culture now. We'll watch the numbers and assign blame or credit to the particular set of politicians in charge. But it's a shame that we even think of them as responsible for things like that.

Uhhhhh, I'm pretty sure you do want the government managing poverty. If it didn't, we'd have a bloody revolution every 25 years.

Uhhhhh, I'm pretty sure you do want the government managing poverty. If it didn't, we'd have a bloody revolution every 25 years.

Well, we only had one 1776 through around 1930 while the government was not trying to manage poverty like it is now. In fact you might be able to extend that statement to the 1960s. Anyway, the one bloody revolution we had wasn't over poverty.

I've seen that argument anymore. Basically it's "we need to give stuff to people who can't make their own way or there will be violence." We shouldn't be giving people stuff for that reason. If there's violence, respond accordingly. But don't give people what they have not earned because you're intimidated by the threat of violence.

Want to be charitable? Fine. But charity should be a private matter. It should not be compelled by government through confiscation of the resources of the successful in order to placate the unsuccessful.

The poorest segment of the population before the New Deal was the elderly. They are not a threat to incite violence if the reforms were to be repealed.

Tell all the 80+ year olds in this country to go out an "make their own way" and "provide for themselves." They can go pick lettuce in Arizona or something.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The poorest segment of the population before the New Deal was the elderly. They are not a threat to incite violence if the reforms were to be repealed.

Tell all the 80+ year olds in this country to go out an "make their own way" and "provide for themselves." They can go pick lettuce in Arizona or something.

I have no problem with the govt taking care of the elderly. Things were promised to them and at this age you can't break that promise. But there is no reason able bodied 20 something year old people should get welfare for more than 6 months. And we need to lay out changes to the rules for the younger people instead of making all these promises that can't be kept.

One other thing about the elderly. Most of them have pride and will go without things vs. taking a handout. They have an ethic that many young people don't have.

HI54UNI wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:The poorest segment of the population before the New Deal was the elderly. They are not a threat to incite violence if the reforms were to be repealed.

Tell all the 80+ year olds in this country to go out an "make their own way" and "provide for themselves." They can go pick lettuce in Arizona or something.

I have no problem with the govt taking care of the elderly. Things were promised to them and at this age you can't break that promise. But there is no reason able bodied 20 something year old people should get welfare for more than 6 months. And we need to lay out changes to the rules for the younger people instead of making all these promises that can't be kept.

One other thing about the elderly. Most of them have pride and will go without things vs. taking a handout. They have an ethic that many young people don't have.

Good post.

The system holds people back. Years ago, my oldest daughter was a single mother of two. Her work wanted to promote her, but a $.50 per hour would have cost the kids their Medicaid. She couldn't risk it. Her youngest also had asthma to the point that he was frequently hospitalized, once for a week.

Obamacare will take care of that problem, I think. For most, anyway.

Tod wrote:The system holds people back. Years ago, my oldest daughter was a single mother of two. Her work wanted to promote her, but a $.50 per hour would have cost the kids their Medicaid. She couldn't risk it. Her youngest also had asthma to the point that he was frequently hospitalized, once for a week.

Obamacare will take care of that problem, I think. For most, anyway.

Your daughter's decision to spread her legs for some guy held her back, not the system.

D1B wrote:

OL FU wrote:The reason people at the poverty level live better than how it would appear is because of the assistance provided for living expenses.

A single person with two children making $14,000 a year with a $6000 housing voucher, $3000 in food stamps and $7000 income tax "refund" (which is when most of the big screens are bought ) lives like they make $30,000 which of course isn't great but it isn't $14,000 either. Now before you jump all over me, I am not opposed except that I think the tax "refund" should be some other form of assistance. The tax code doesn't look at all income to determine what a person should get. Child support isn't counted like it would be in other assitance, etc. So we do a pretty good job making life better but not great.

My concern is though for someone at that income level there isn't much incentive to do better. For every extra dollar they, they lose probably 80 cents in assistance. So this person has to double their income before they really start to see any benefit. While I say that is a problem, I will be the first to admit I am not sure what to do about,

Strong post.

Solution - provide opportunities with time limits and stiff penalties for not taking advantage of them. Also we need to start the discussion about mandatory birth control, sterilization and forced labor camps.

Catholic priests don't procreate, take a vow of poverty (if they're in an order), and lead quite comfortable lives.

Chet doesn't want you to know how broke the south is, yet they constantly vote for the racist republicans.

Cluck U wrote:

Tod wrote:The system holds people back. Years ago, my oldest daughter was a single mother of two. Her work wanted to promote her, but a $.50 per hour would have cost the kids their Medicaid. She couldn't risk it. Her youngest also had asthma to the point that he was frequently hospitalized, once for a week.

Obamacare will take care of that problem, I think. For most, anyway.

Your daughter's decision to spread her legs for some guy held her back, not the system.

What a shame. If I ever meet you, I will hurt you in horrible ways.

Tod wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


Your daughter's decision to spread her legs for some guy held her back, not the system.

What a shame. If I ever meet you, I will hurt you in horrible ways.

I'm with you. I would bet huge money this pussy never shows his head in public. Bunch of soft, losers on this board.

houndawg wrote:

OL FU wrote:The reason people at the poverty level live better than how it would appear is because of the assistance provided for living expenses.

A single person with two children making $14,000 a year with a $6000 housing voucher, $3000 in food stamps and $7000 income tax "refund" (which is when most of the big screens are bought ) lives like they make $30,000 which of course isn't great but it isn't $14,000 either. Now before you jump all over me, I am not opposed except that I think the tax "refund" should be some other form of assistance. The tax code doesn't look at all income to determine what a person should get. Child support isn't counted like it would be in other assitance, etc. So we do a pretty good job making life better but not great.

My concern is though for someone at that income level there isn't much incentive to do better. For every extra dollar they, they lose probably 80 cents in assistance. So this person has to double their income before they really start to see any benefit. While I say that is a problem, I will be the first to admit I am not sure what to do about,

Exactly.

There is not a state in the union where a minimum wage worker working a 40 hour week can afford a two bedroom apartment.

One of the things I have thought about is the following: There isn't much you can do about Grandma or Grandpa. Probably not much you can do about mom or dad, but daughter or son might be a different situation. Would it work to provide a time limit on housing benefits but during that time provide money for a technical education working toward a living wage. I understand that ups and downs in the economy would change circumstances, but somehow we have to provide for the poor while providing the encouragement and incentive to move up. It might cost $20,000 to save $200,000. On the other hand what do you do if the education doesn't help. I don't know but I know adding to the entitlements won't make things better.

OL FU wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Exactly.

There is not a state in the union where a minimum wage worker working a 40 hour week can afford a two bedroom apartment.

One of the things I have thought about is the following: There isn't much you can do about Grandma or Grandpa. Probably not much you can do about mom or dad, but daughter or son might be a different situation. Would it work to provide a time limit on housing benefits but during that time provide money for a technical education working toward a living wage. I understand that ups and downs in the economy would change circumstances, but somehow we have to provide for the poor while providing the encouragement and incentive to move up. It might cost $20,000 to save $200,000. On the other hand what do you do if the education doesn't help. I don't know but I know adding to the entitlements won't make things better.

There's always going to be some who slip through the cracks but I'm guessing it would be a very wise investment. Especially if it was a work/study/CCC type program where they are receiving an apprenticeship while actually providing productivity.

Tod wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


Your daughter's decision to spread her legs for some guy held her back, not the system.

What a shame. If I ever meet you, I will hurt you in horrible ways.

Blow it out your ass. You'd have to find a way to get some other taxpayers try to do the job for you.

Speaking of jobs and expectations, your daughter pumps out a couple kids while planning a fullfilling career at the local Mini-Mart and you expect the rest of us to take care of her and her passion flowers? How about manning up and taking care of them yourself instead of her mooching off everyone else? Not big enough to shoulder the responsibility?

"The system holds people back"...the cry of a loser.