M
in the old days what the poverty line was really measuring is the number of people who were poor after the things we did to reduce poverty. Today that same poverty line is measuring the number of people who are poor before all the things we do to reduce poverty.
It’s worth noting that the four major poverty reduction programs are Medicaid, SNAP, EITC and Section 8 vouchers. And we include none of them, not one single groat of that money spent, in our current estimates of poverty.
Bernie Sanders is dangerous to the status quo where the top 10% own as much as the bottom 84%. That is true. Your "facts" however are wrong.
1. The poor are getting poorer, count inflation and the cost of living.
2. The poor are hungrier today as food stamp programs are being slashed across the board.
3. The poor have much less than the average citizen, this is undeniable.
I will throw in two more actual facts.... Poverty was measured by the ability to afford 2 meals for a family of 4. These calculations were based on the price of food. The measurement of poverty today? The cost of housing, which has dramatically risen.
51% of ALL working people in the United States made $33k or less.
Bernie is dangerous to the status quo, and so are the majority of working people.
If it comes down to Sanders or Trump I'm going to have to think real hard about who I'm going to vote for.
I recommend the Democrats settle on Mrs. Clinton as their only hope.
How many must feel the same way about her!
If it comes down to Sanders or Trump I'm going to have to think real hard about who I'm going to vote for.
I recommend the Democrats settle on Mrs. Clinton as their only hope.
How many must feel the same way about her!
You mischaracterize Mr. Sanders when you focus on the poor. Sanders is saying that the middle class is economically stagnant while the rich are taking an ever increasing slice of national income. That's all true and undeniable.
The nation has had bull markets before. The period after World War II through the 1960s was a huge bull market, yet income inequality was controlled through government policies that taxed wealth and supported high wage middle class jobs, as illustrated by the Piketty and Saez graph.It's always true in bull markets as the wealthy have a ton more in equities and the extremely wealthy are often compensated in equity. So obviously in bear markets the rich get poorer a lot faster than the poor.
Partisans will obviously give credit to their party for the strong stock market while simultaneously decrying how much wealthier the wealthy are getting. Total irony considering the two are inextricable.
The nation has had bull markets before. The period after World War II through the 1960s was a huge bull market, yet income inequality was controlled through government policies that taxed wealth and supported high wage middle class jobs, as illustrated by the Piketty and Saez graph.
.....
It would be very inconvenient for your partisanship to acknowledge any other anomalous aspects of the postwar expansion, so I suspect you won't.
The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history.
Middle class America: That’s the country I grew up in. It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you are talking about -- because I have no idea what you are driving at.
In the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn't only liberal Democrats that believed in these policies. These policies were universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans, as evident in the 1956 Republican Platform.Obviously.
Even if I was so silly as to grant you and Paul Krugman the notion that liberal Democrat policies single-handedly created the postwar expansion in the US, the fact is the options available to firms in 2020 are not at all similar to those that were available in 1946. The global economy is extremely different.
In the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn't only liberal Democrats that believed in these policies. These policies were universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans, as evident in the 1956 Republican Platform.
To say that options available to firms in 2020 are less than in the 1940s, I could not disagree more.
You mischaracterize Mr. Sanders when you focus on the poor. Sanders is saying that the middle class is economically stagnant while the rich are taking an ever increasing slice of national income. That's all true and undeniable.
Socialist is an old RW charge which carried the meaning a person was either a person supporting the state taking your hard earned money to redistribute to others.....and/or money make your taxes increased ......or a suspect communist out to destroy the US government......... and not to be listened to
However today that argument holds little water because over time and better education todays folks have no idea of what socialism is...........and why it is to be considered BAD......
Just look at the large number of youth that comprise Sanders supporters.............seems they find not trouble with Sanders' ideas and/or socialism
bernie calls himself a socialist, so theres that...
I think you wanted to be 'concise' as opposed to 'succinct'. Also Tim Worstall establishes his argument which you have used as a premis your argument, he does not agree with your 'premise' nor does he know of your existence.
Both you and Mr. Worstall obviously have not seen the actual poverty that is in our country. The logic presented by both of you is greatly flawed, not only due to the fact that there are many important factors (e.g inflation, cost of living, wage stagnation, etc.) left out of both arguments, but you also fail to acknowledge the fact that the programs you listed are not panaceas to poverty. Medicaid really only works in the states that allow individuals to use it, many states have Medicaid programs that are severely limited in who they help, especially with conservative states holding back on expansion. Section 8 vouchers are not easy to get either, in fact, everyone of these programs are impacted by the real facts that poverty and income inequality are rampant in our country despite what you and Mr. Worstall believe. Also, never place all of your faith in one article written by a single "contributor" to a conservative financial media outlet like Forbes, especially when discussing income disparities. Food for thought.
Sanders thinks global warming is our biggest threat and that it causes terrorism. There is noting more to discuss. The guy is off the rails and his supports are delusional. After the e!section they should be rounded up and deported.
bernie calls himself a socialist, so theres that...
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?