• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Poverty rate up to 12.7% -- Fourth consecutive year poverty has risen

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fact: Fourth straight year poverty rate up under President George W. Bush.

Fact: The last time this happened was back in 1989 to 1993 under President
Bush also.

What? How can that be? Oh I see, that was way back under President
Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush. Like father like son they
say.

Why? Are we not surprised?






http://http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-30-census-poverty_x.htm

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.1 million to 37 million last year, despite a robust economy that created 2.2 million new jobs. It was the fourth consecutive year poverty has risen.

Median household income remained stable at $44,389. But it took more workers to produce that income; median earnings for both men and women did not keep up with inflation.

The 2004 data, reported by the Census Bureau on Tuesday, showed an economy still recovering from the 2001 recession. Unemployment peaked in 2003 at 6.3%, but the poverty rate kept climbing in 2004, to 12.7%. The increase was felt most by whites, people ages 18 to 64, and residents of the Midwest, where manufacturing lags the overall economy.

The four-year increase in poverty under President Bush is the worst since his father was in office. The poverty rate rose for five years from 1989 to 1993, as it had from 1979 to 1983...
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Poverty has been relative.

Technically I live in poverty, and we are doing better than many of those who are considered non-poverty by national average.

Just sayin, put it in perspective..
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
128shot said:
Poverty has been relative.

Technically I live in poverty, and we are doing better than many of those who are considered non-poverty by national average.

Just sayin, put it in perspective..

Oh, I see, the rich getting richer is also relative I guess, to put it in perspective.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
they generally do,

they have assets that do this.


Sorry, not working......
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
128shot said:
they generally do,

they have assets that do this.


Sorry, not working......
Let's see, unemployment rate is at 4.7%, coupled with the poverty rate at 12.7% means you add 1,423,000 unemployed to the rolls of 37,000,000 people in poverty, add to that fray the price of gas at an all time high of nearly $3.00 dollars a gallon, plus the latest polls reflecting Americans very unhappy with the war in Iraq not going well... YIKES!

Things are not going well President Bush, are you in trouble, or what?

(Not to mention Cindy Sheehan!) :cool:

Can hardly wait for November of 2006!
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How do they measure poverty? This is not mentioned in the article. I want to know, because there are always a lot of BS statistics being thrown around.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Connecticutter said:
How do they measure poverty? This is not mentioned in the article. I want to know, because there are always a lot of BS statistics being thrown around.
All of it irrelevant....

I'm going to say a cold, hard fact here which some people are unwilling to understand...

This is NOT meant to be a generalization, and it doesn't mean ALL...

You know who is NOT getting any blame for the poor?

THE POOR!!

Don't THEY have a part in this too?...Is it President Bush's problem when someone gets addicted to drugs, loses their job, then house, and moves into a project on government "assistance"?

Isn't there any self-blame anymore?...Or is everyone a "victim"...

Somebody needs to bring Bill Cosby to this forum and set things straight....
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
All of it irrelevant....

I'm going to say a cold, hard fact here which some people are unwilling to understand...

This is NOT meant to be a generalization, and it doesn't mean ALL...

You know who is NOT getting any blame for the poor?

THE POOR!!

Don't THEY have a part in this too?...Is it President Bush's problem when someone gets addicted to drugs, loses their job, then house, and moves into a project on government "assistance"?

Isn't there any self-blame anymore?...Or is everyone a "victim"...

Somebody needs to bring Bill Cosby to this forum and set things straight....
Well, I would be interested in knowing how many of the 37 millions are poor because addicted to drugs..
And how many are because of a health problem and the price of health care
And how many are because they've been laid off
And how many because they have 2 jobs, but still can't get a living from it

True, there are certainly people who are responsible for their situation. As usual, it's a minority. As usual, conservatives (and not only in the US.. They have exactly the same stance over here) use a few examples (wellfare queen, etc..) to stigmatize the whole lot.

I don't think it's an honest way to see things.

The way social nets are in place in the US makes it way too easy to fall in poverty if you stumble. That's the main difference with Europe. I prefer paying more taxes (and taking that into account when I negociate for a new job) and make sure that a minor health problem or a few months unemployment won't lead to lose my house and finish in the streets.

Just my 0.02€
Y
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
epr64 said:
Well, I would be interested in knowing how many of the 37 millions are poor because addicted to drugs..
And how many are because of a health problem and the price of health care
And how many are because they've been laid off
And how many because they have 2 jobs, but still can't get a living from it

True, there are certainly people who are responsible for their situation. As usual, it's a minority. As usual, conservatives (and not only in the US.. They have exactly the same stance over here) use a few examples (wellfare queen, etc..) to stigmatize the whole lot.

I don't think it's an honest way to see things.

The way social nets are in place in the US makes it way too easy to fall in poverty if you stumble. That's the main difference with Europe. I prefer paying more taxes (and taking that into account when I negociate for a new job) and make sure that a minor health problem or a few months unemployment won't lead to lose my house and finish in the streets.

Just my 0.02€
Y
Your disagreement is duly noted...

My example was plainly that...an example...

If I sat here long enough, I could come up with dozens more...One main one, I would think, is prison terms that negate providing for family, but that's an issue for another day...

I don't believe that "it's a minority" that some people are responsible for their situation...I think you would agree that a HUGE majority of people living under the poverty level are people that had children either through their own "I can have sex anytime I want" attitude and children where the father is not showing his true responsibility....There are people that even purposefully have MORE kids to increase their food stamps & welfare checks...I live smackdab in front of a project here in Philly...I could give you names & addresses...These are people that do not conceive that conceiving hurts them in the long run...(Nice play on words, huh?:cool:)

However you would like to slice it, that is a situation that THEY brought to themselves..."I can't go to school because I have to take care of my kid(s!)" is a very popular response here. And they EXPECT & DEMAND a bailout.

There are people that live their lives getting public assistance and working menial jobs because that lifestyle has become "comfortable" to them...not in the sense that they LIKE where they're at...but they're more afraid of "making the jump" to being a productive member of society. They'd rather have the cushion of stability than taking a chance at failing...

Not in all cases, mind you...but a LOT more than people are willing to accept...

Being on welfare was MEANT to be a stigma...You only went there as a last resort...It used to be a Scarlet Letter...I had a boss 15 years ago at a bank who told me that his parents had 9(!) kids but REFUSED to go on welfare...why?...Because they were too PROUD...

That attitude doesn't exist anymore...Now it's a nonchalance attitude of, "Yeah...I'm on welfare...what the big deal?...as long as they're gonna give it...I'm gonna take it."

You wanna know what I consider "poor"? How many of those 37 million have designer clothes?....How many are driving a better car than my 2000 Jimmy? How many are saying they can't give their children a decent education and then go home to watch cable or talk on their cell phone?

Knock those people out and I bet that number gets cut in half...at least...

Sorry...that might have been more than 2 cents.:2wave:
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Damn that President Bush and his ilk! I can't believe he is heartless enough to personally make these people poor. I am a little ignorant on this subject, so perhaps someone could enlighten me on exactly which of Bush's policies have made people poor. Was it eliminating income taxes for most of these people, or his inability to prevent the centuries long cycle of recession/boom?

Never fear though, I have the solution. We can solve poverty, but it takes a conservative and a pragmatist. The answer: Indentured servitude

Now hear me out... Anyone can voluntarily enter this program. You are provided with medical care, shelter in a government dorm, care and education for your children, and work. Servants will be employed either in government labour jobs, or private citizens could "buy" a servant from the government for a healthy fee (and we are socking those evil rich people to boot). Wouldn't it be nice to be able to buy a big, strapping white guy to help out around the house? The proceeds of the "sales" of servants could fund the program, as well as some extra for the general coffers. At the same time, we limit welfare to only the hardest cases, those who truly are unable to work due to physical or mental disability. No one is forced to become a servant, but there is no government assistance available otherwise if you are eligible for the servant program. Think of the savings! And these folks are working for what they receive, something that will help them remember a great motivator for success - pride in one's self. It's degrading you say? Humiliating you say? Well, government assistance should be. It should motivate you to no longer require government assistance.

This is a prosperous enough nation that no one should starve, but it is not prosperous enough to be able to afford to give salaries (welfare) to those who are able (though maybe not willing) to work.
 
Top Bottom