Poverty levels on rise


Locutus
#1
Via Weasel Zippers

Obamanomics: Census Shows Poverty Levels Skyrocketing To Highest Level Since 1965…





By ASSOCIATED PRESS | 7/22/12 8:54 AM EDT

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 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 since 1965.

Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.


more


Poverty levels on rise - Associated Press - POLITICO.com
 
Machjo
#2
I see two solutions:

1. Direct wealth transfer from rich to poor, which many socialists would propose and which I don't fully agree with except in very moderate levels and in a targetted manner. or

2. Managing the poverty. This could mean shifting infrastructure spending from highways to more walking and bicycle paths, shifting spending from the military to skills training programmes for the unemployed, etc. which in some ways is the same as 1. above but in a more targetted manner.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I see two solutions:

1. Direct wealth transfer from rich to poor, which many socialists would propose and which I don't fully agree with except in very moderate levels and in a targetted manner. or

2. Managing the poverty. This could mean shifting infrastructure spending from highways to more walking and bicycle paths, shifting spending from the military to skills training programmes for the unemployed, etc. which in some ways is the same as 1. above but in a more targetted manner.

I am not sure when you can't afford food, how much help a bicycle path would be. But in theory infrastructure spending should trigger some construction jobs which would mean the employable people would be able to become employed again and not count as poor.
 
Walter
+1
#4
It's Bush's fault.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I am not sure when you can't afford food, how much help a bicycle path would be. But in theory infrastructure spending should trigger some construction jobs which would mean the employable people would be able to become employed again and not count as poor.

I'm not proposing cutting social security, but merely shifting other government spending from infrastructure aimed at the rich to infrastructure aimed at the... well, the poor and those rich folk who like riding bicycles I suppose. But unlike highways, at least the poor can access that too.

Skils training should be a must along with education spending.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I am not sure when you can't afford food, how much help a bicycle path would be. But in theory infrastructure spending should trigger some construction jobs which would mean the employable people would be able to become employed again and not count as poor.

The flaw in your statement is that those folks that are employed in developing the infrastructure would then qualify (in someones eyes) as being rich and therefore subject to the wealth transfer that is proposed.

Kind of a vicious cycle that is not exactly prone to motivating anyone to seek gains.
 
Vancouverite
#7
That's true, but American manufacturing is undergoing a renaissance, and there's a shortage of skilled labor. Furthermore, North Dakota is undergoing an oil boom, which means there's work in that state.

Last, but perhaps not least, the conservative Heritage Foundation states that Americans enjoy more amenities than before, so the picture isn't quite so simple.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The flaw in your statement is that those folks that are employed in developing the infrastructure would then qualify (in someones eyes) as being rich and therefore subject to the wealth transfer that is proposed.

Kind of a vicious cycle that is not exactly prone to motivating anyone to seek gains.

I guess that all depends on how you define rich and where you draw the line. I would never put a construction workers wages as being 'rich'. He may hit middle class.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I guess that all depends on how you define rich and where you draw the line. I would never put a construction workers wages as being 'rich'. He may hit middle class.


Herein lies the problem.

The knee jerk reaction is to 'take' from those demographics that are deemed to have 'more' than the average median demographic... The problem is that the groups that advocate the perpetual 'taking' from one group to subsidize other groups fail to account for the potential ramifications.

No better example going these days than that of Greece.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+2
#10  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

It's Bush's fault.

We agree. But I will throw in Clinton as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Herein lies the problem.

The knee jerk reaction is to 'take' from those demographics that are deemed to have 'more' than the average median demographic... The problem is that the groups that advocate the perpetual 'taking' from one group to subsidize other groups fail to account for the potential ramifications.

No better example going these days than that of Greece.

I don't think Greece is a good example- Corrupt govt- Corruption on tax collection- Massive state support for industry- Pensions gold plated- Cooking the states financial books - Yet no one in the EU knew. Find that hard to swallow.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

I don't think Greece is a good example- Corrupt govt- Corruption on tax collection- Massive state support for industry- Pensions gold plated- Cooking the states financial books - Yet no one in the EU knew. Find that hard to swallow.

The corrupt gvt and lack of people willing to pay their taxes are a symptom of the culture of entitlement. It all comes down to the cop-out of leaning on 'someone else' to solve your financial woes. In Greece's case, they need to 'tax' nations like Germany (read: 'the wealthy') in order to float their boat.
 
Locutus
#12
People of all classes live way beyond their means, buy and consume too much crap, some of it quite pricey. I include everything from second vehicles to buying bottled water and lunches to providing every teenager with 'devices', keeping up with the Jone's mentality and the like. Multiple credit cards carrying huge balances with monthly payments. Happens all the time. Banks love you for it.

A fantasy that might be useful at the higher levels would be the friend who is a simple accountant like in the movie 'Dave'. Have buddy look at the government books in essence and sort out the waste. Pay the bills, bank the surplus. It's either that or the local credit counselor that would help an average Joe out of a bind. Household budget and all like that.

I know...merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. But still.

 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#13
First of all poverty levels rise and fall in all nations from time to time depending
on the circumstances. The reason is because the capitalist system does not
work any better than a socialist system does.
yes the priorities can be shifted to roads, bike paths bridges and other spending
on infrastructure that can be done with political will. The problem is, governments
use these programs to stave off curing the real problems that confront society
itself. Therefore we solve things for a while and hobble along to the next huge
downturn.
At some point we have to ensure politicians actually get down to solving the problem
of life, ya, don't wait around holding your breath on that one.
seriously, if people understood the system and other systems they could as a society
chose what is in and what is out. They could act accordingly in their own personal
lives to meet their financial responsibility the themselves and others. If that were to
happen people would plan ahead and take measures to protect themselves in the
long term. Instead lets ask the important question, who is featured on Entertainment
Tonight.
 
Walter
#14
Matthew 26:11
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

First of all poverty levels rise and fall in all nations from time to time depending
on the circumstances. The reason is because the capitalist system does not
work any better than a socialist system does.
yes the priorities can be shifted to roads, bike paths bridges and other spending
on infrastructure that can be done with political will. The problem is, governments
use these programs to stave off curing the real problems that confront society
itself. Therefore we solve things for a while and hobble along to the next huge
downturn.
At some point we have to ensure politicians actually get down to solving the problem
of life, ya, don't wait around holding your breath on that one.
seriously, if people understood the system and other systems they could as a society
chose what is in and what is out. They could act accordingly in their own personal
lives to meet their financial responsibility the themselves and others. If that were to
happen people would plan ahead and take measures to protect themselves in the
long term. Instead lets ask the important question, who is featured on Entertainment
Tonight.

I find it shocking that you truly believe that government or politians can solve this or any problem for that matter.
 
mentalfloss
#16
Poverty is at an all time high - and it all happened because of the last 3 years.
 
Machjo
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I find it shocking that you truly believe that government or politians can solve this or any problem for that matter.

Governments can't "solve" any problem, but they can create the environment needed to allow us solve them.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#18
" Obamanomics: Census Shows Poverty Levels Skyrocketing To Highest Level Since 1965… "
That isn't a strictly Obama issue. The wealth gap has been widening for decades and it's likely due to one factor - the importance of profit over people. The major leap into this concept was when the US gov't declared that companies were afforded the exact same rights as humans (that practise started way back in the early 1800s).
 
EagleSmack
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Vancouverite View Post


Last, but perhaps not least, the conservative Heritage Foundation states that Americans enjoy more amenities than before, so the picture isn't quite so simple.

Our poor are those who don't have all the stuff the wealthy have. And they want to have all that stuff and be able to do all the things the wealthy can do. If they can't... well they consider themselves poor.
 
Walter
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

" Obamanomics: Census Shows Poverty Levels Skyrocketing To Highest Level Since 1965… "
That isn't a strictly Obama issue. The wealth gap has been widening for decades and it's likely due to one factor - the importance of profit over people. The major leap into this concept was when the US gov't declared that companies were afforded the exact same rights as humans (that practise started way back in the early 1800s).

I'm shocked, shocked that his policies aren't producing Utopia.
Casablanca gambling? I'm shocked! - YouTube
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Our poor are those who don't have all the stuff the wealthy have. And they want to have all that stuff and be able to do all the things the wealthy can do. If they can't... well they consider themselves poor.

There are those "types" of people, too, yup. There are also those who like a simple, un-ostentatious life, too. lol For example, Warren Buffett could easily afford a home that would make Gore's main home look like a shoebox, but instead it is about 6200' sq.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jul 23rd, 2012 at 04:00 PM..
 
EagleSmack
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

There are those "types" of people, too, yup. There are also those who like a simple, un-ostentatious life, too. lol

I bet if you go into every housing project they all have a flat screen and cable TV and air conditioning. I bet they would consider themselves poor as well.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

I'm shocked, shocked that his policies aren't producing Utopia.
Casablanca gambling? I'm shocked! - YouTube

Oh. I'm not shocked by anything political anymore.
 

Similar Threads

2
The rise and rise of London
by Blackleaf | Feb 19th, 2007
0
levels
by sj007 | Nov 21st, 2004
0
New user levels
by Administration | Jan 29th, 2003