WASHINGTON (AP) — Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — 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."
Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax reduction, 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. He said some people described as poor live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income - Yahoo! News
To me I find this to be shocking. In my opinion, I would think the right is primarily to blame, for catering to the wealthy.
As they say, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
where is the real wake?
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income - Yahoo! News
To me I find this to be shocking. In my opinion, I would think the right is primarily to blame, for catering to the wealthy.
As they say, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Squeezed by rising living costs
Do you realize why costs are rising?
I don't have the details on every, single factor. I wouldn't mind hearing your version, though.
The data from the bls support the idea that this is something different than Americans being lazy.The bull**** that the unemployed are lazy shows how far off the make some GOP politicos are. We are in a depression. Obama doesn't have the leadership ability or the man balls get this nation back on its feet. Ron Paul, maybe, I don't know.
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. He said some people described as poor live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
I find this statement kind of galling:
Being poor in America, you have little security. Having a car, a roof and a TV (as if they're rare or expensive) is hardly representative of your ability to afford health insurance or provide for yourself or your family in old age. We live in a consumer society filled with cheap electronics. The working poor have ample access to Wiis, as they are affordable. Health insurance, however ...
In another time, people didn't spend their money on such frivilous things when other needs were more pressing.
Such is the nature of entitlement, which liberals play to for votes election after election.
In another time, people didn't spend their money on such frivilous things when other needs were more pressing.
Such is the nature of entitlement, which liberals play to for votes election after election.
Sure, it is better to be poor in the US than in some places. Not sure why some see that as a bad thing. And I can get a wide screen TV much easier than I can get health care or any number of important things.
Still, given the choice, people would choose wealth over poverty. Not sure why some want to minimalize those in need. Nor do I accept the government is to blame.
"To blame"? Is to blame also.
I'm saying government has little control of a lot of things. They have helped the wealthy more than the middle class, and that has it's problems. We would all be better off if government and business wasn't so joined at the hip. But I wouldn't single out one party for that, as both are to blame, and rather equally.
So, I would not argue you can fix this problem by electing either party.
This is a different arguement. That both parties are largely the same and that both have large groups willing to defend one over the other is not the governments fault, it's ours.
Didn't we vote for these guys?
Over all, the things that effect the economy is outside the government.
We do have a problme with government and business being too closely linked. A problem with policy favoring business. But we also have a problem with business being short sighted, seeking cheap labor overseas, and not leading the world as much as we did in manufacturing.
So, I'm saying ultimately we need act for us and not blame mere politicans.
Obama promised to address the jobs going overseas. He's done absolutely nothing about it.
What was he supposed to do? What could he have done that would have satisfied you?
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income - Yahoo! News
To me I find this to be shocking. In my opinion, I would think the right is primarily to blame, for catering to the wealthy.
As they say, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
He laid out what he would do and it was one of the few things I agreed with him on and had hoped he would do. Go research his campaign promises.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?