whats your solution for poverty

[Catawba]

Well - honestly - we really need to address what people consider to be 'in poverty' - a lot of people believe they're suffering and struggling when really they're not.

I suppose you think people that aren't paid a living wage have it made don't you? Are you one of those people that think that just because a person is not living in third world condition they are not below the poverty level in this country. Half the country should just start getting used to living in poverty, so we may continue providing tax cuts for the wealthy?

 

[Neomalthusian]

I suppose you think people that aren't paid a living wage have it made don't you?

No one is paid a living wage in this country. The concept of a living wage does not currently exist. The wage is the employer's value that is placed on that particular employee's performance.

Half the country should just start getting used to living in poverty, so we may continue providing tax cuts for the wealthy?

It is not required of private industry to suppress anybody's wages in exchange for the federal government's provision of tax cuts for the wealthy. They are disconnected.

 

[Mason66]

After reading 3 of the 38 pages I need a definition of poverty in this case in order to answer, or try to answer, this question.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I suppose you think people that aren't paid a living wage have it made don't you? Are you one of those people that think that just because a person is not living in third world condition they are not below the poverty level in this country. Half the country should just start getting used to living in poverty, so we may continue providing tax cuts for the wealthy?

Half the country is living in poverty, really? Your post is a good example of exactly what we need to quit - the over the top extremes used to 'paint a picture'

The other part of your post is yet another good example of what we need to do. You know - like put things into perspective and that means to stop using the 1% well-off to paint a picture . . . because no matter WHAT - not many from the remaining 99% are going to be joining the 1% even if min wage was raised to $20.00/hr . . . ok? It just won't be happening.

Sorry.

What does that matter, then, if it's only a sliver of the entire population? It means absolutely nothing. It means we shouldn't base what's 'average' or 'normal' or 'rough' or 'poor' on anything they do.

And I don't see our government cutting taxes - or even adding taxes - and then that somehow benefiting anyone directly . . . our government doesn't work that way. You can take the wealthy 1% for 95% of their wealth every year and it won't be putting food on anyone's table.

That is not the reason why others are struggling.

 

[cannuck]

Sounds like a good idea to me, but it still doesn't make sense to give tax breaks for moving our jobs overseas.

with consumption based tax, EVERYTHING (other than necessities of life) is taxed - nothing to give a "break" to. The more you consume, the more you pay. The thing is, imports can't avoid paying same tax a domestic and the more non-essentials you use, the more you pay.

I think that would be a step backwards to abandon public schools for schools for the wealthy.

Why would they be "for the wealthy"? Instead of just giving a school money (public or private) with no accountability, no reward for performance, etc. let the people who are PAYING for their education in their taxes elect which school (again, public or private) gets their money. Many years ago, my wife (an educator) and I looked at several schools of both stripes and found that some of the private schools here were delivering far higher results for less than 1/2 the cost of publics - so why would you deny us access to them? Similarly, if someone wants to send their children to a more expensive private system, why would you expect them to give their tax dollar to the public system if they don't use it?

One of the solutions to solving the poverty problem is NOT IMHO to repeat the educational failures we have already - which is what you are proposing.

I prefer employers paying a bit more for full time work than I do a taxpayer welfare system to supplement employer's sub-poverty wages.

I wish I had a snappy comeback for that, but I don't. I can only speak from my experience working with the Minister of Social Services here that our minimum wage WAS so close to what welfare provided that there was little incentive to look for a job. Our legislated minimum wage is considerably higher than that now, but the ongoing economic boom (our economy is based on resources, ag and manufacturing, so we didn't slow down very much - and are incredibly strong right now) has forced the cost of housing so high, I can not imagine how anyone could live on one single wage of $9.50/hr. I have to admit I just don't know how much upward pressure on minimum wages it would take to slow employment.

 

[Catawba]

No one is paid a living wage in this country. The concept of a living wage does not currently exist. The wage is the employer's value that is placed on that particular employee's performance.

Conservatives prefer a system of taxpayer subsidy for sub-par wages.

It is not required of private industry to suppress anybody's wages in exchange for the federal government's provision of tax cuts for the wealthy. They are disconnected.

If you think the failure of trickle down theory is unrelated to the increase in the numbers living in poverty in this country, you do not understand the reelection of this president.

 

[Catawba]

After reading 3 of the 38 pages I need a definition of poverty in this case in order to answer, or try to answer, this question.

How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

 

[Catawba]

Half the country is living in poverty, really? Your post is a good example of exactly what we need to quit - the over the top extremes used to 'paint a picture'

U.S. Poverty: Census Finds Nearly Half Of Americans Are Poor Or Low-Income

The other part of your post is yet another good example of what we need to do. You know - like put things into perspective and that means to stop using the 1% well-off to paint a picture . . . because no matter WHAT - not many from the remaining 99% are going to be joining the 1% even if min wage was raised to $20.00/hr . . . ok? It just won't be happening.

Sorry.

Being sorry for 30 years of trickle down economics is not enough, not while so many are hurting while those at the top enjoy record wealth. People have had enough of that.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Conservatives prefer a system of taxpayer subsidy for sub-par wages.

Those are also completely disconnected. Your "this for that" comparisons are non-starters.

If you think the failure of trickle down theory is unrelated to the increase in the numbers living in poverty in this country, you do not understand the reelection of this president.

If poverty were skyrocketing despite a flat population curve, you'd have a stronger point. Immigrants are flooding this country and despite the slowing of the rate of growth, we still have constantly more people than before despite two huge market busts (the dot.com and housing) in the last 15 years.

What was the poverty rate (percentages) in the late 1950s, for example? And what was the upper marginal tax rate then? What about now?

 

[Catawba]

Those are also completely disconnected. Your "this for that" comparisons are non-starters.

They aren't disconnected at all, we either have one or the other or we have people slitting your throat for a loaf of bread. That's why you don't seeing conservatives proposing to end welfare.

If poverty were skyrocketing despite a flat population curve, you'd have a stronger point. Immigrants are flooding this country and despite the slowing of the rate of growth, we still have constantly more people than before despite two huge market busts (the dot.com and housing) in the last 15 years.

What was the poverty rate (percentages) in the late 1950s, for example? And what was the upper marginal tax rate then? What about now?

Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade’

"Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1996.

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard."

 

[Neomalthusian]

They aren't disconnected at all, we either have one or the other or we have people slitting your throat for a loaf of bread.

Hey cool, a false trichotomy. Don't see those every day.

That's why you don't seeing conservatives proposing to end welfare.

I don't see politicians proposing to end welfare because it's political suicide. Yeah, Democracy!

 

[Catawba]

Hey cool, a false trichotomy. Don't see those every day


I don't see politicians proposing to end welfare because it's political suicide. Yeah, Democracy!

The Democrats have proposed a living wage and building a stronger working class to reduce welfare. What have the conservatives proposed to reduce welfare?

 

[Neomalthusian]

The Democrats have proposed a living wage

Cite.

What have the conservatives proposed to reduce welfare?

Nothing serious, because voters are greedy and won't let them do the right thing, which is to abolish it.

 

[Catawba]

Cite.

"Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) plan to jointly introduce legislation on Tuesday to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and peg it to inflation, recently telling HuffPost their proposed boost is "the right thing to do" and "a matter of justice."

"When you see what's happened to CEO salaries and compensation since the 1970s, and what's happened to the minimum wage, it's just startling," Harkin said. "We can't continue on this way. We need a higher minimum wage."

"People do see the minimum wage as a matter of justice for people who don't have the ability to bargain for decent wages," Miller said. "And that's all this is -- it's a minimum wage. Nobody's walking away from here rich."

Minimum Wage Increase Proposed By Tom Harkin, George Miller 'A Matter Of Justice'

Nothing serious

I thought not, but the Democrats are proposing something to reduce taxpayer supported welfare.

 

[Campbell]

And for good reason.

George Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell were both very strong believers in the Weinberger Doctrine.

One of the main tenets of the Weinberger doctrine is that a president should not take military action and send troops into harms way without the support of the peoples' representatives in congress. This is keeping with article 1 of the US constitution which states that congress has the power to declare war.

When congress funded the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in a bill not attached to the overall budget they were giving their support for the war.

This is diametrically opposed to Democrats such as Johnson, Obama and Clinton who just say screw the people, screw the constitution, I'll just send the US to war wherever and whenever I want. After all, I'm the dictator. I don't give a damn if the peoples' elected representatives oppose it or not.

Excuse me!!!!! Not a single soldier died during Clinton's two terms. One of Bush's unnecessary wars has been ended and the other is throttling down. You try to make it sound like staying out of war and saving thousands of lives and tens of thousands seriously wounded is a bad thing. I guess it is if your heart and soul are tied up with the military/industrial complrx....Halliburton and Blackwater have to eat too.
If Bush's daughters had been in uniform we would have never gone close to Iraq.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

It's tax cuts and bigger spending. I want you to look closely.....these figures came from the bureau of the public debt.

I have looked at these numbers, about 50 times since that is how many times you have posted them to show everything from what type of cereal kids like to how Bush is the devil. They don't show anything you claim though.

Now why don't you look at the figures you claim to be such an expert at. Look at the annual deficits and then look at the interest payments for that year. Bush would have run a surplus in 3 or 4 years even with the tax cuts and the un-funded wars if the interest is not included and very small deficits in many others. So quit your whining about how Obama has had to pay so much inheireted interest payments and this is why he has run such large deficits. It's simply not true.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

At least I'm smart enough to understand fiscal years, accrued debt and the increasing interest payments etc.

Actually you aren't very smart at all.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

After reading 3 of the 38 pages I need a definition of poverty in this case in order to answer, or try to answer, this question.

It's whatever you want it to be in order to make your point.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Excuse me!!!!! Not a single soldier died during Clinton's two terms.

Really? Nobody died in Somalia or on the Cole huh. Might be news to the widows.

 

[Campbell]

Actually you aren't very smart at all.

Another cyber detective, or do you have a crystal ball

 

[Campbell]

I have looked at these numbers, about 50 times since that is how many times you have posted them to show everything from what type of cereal kids like to how Bush is the devil. They don't show anything you claim though.

Now why don't you look at the figures you claim to be such an expert at. Look at the annual deficits and then look at the interest payments for that year. Bush would have run a surplus in 3 or 4 years even with the tax cuts and the un-funded wars if the interest is not included and very small deficits in many others. So quit your whining about how Obama has had to pay so much inheireted interest payments and this is why he has run such large deficits. It's simply not true.

You either can't read or you're stupid:

..............................ANNUAL INTEREST/NATIONAL DEBT................................

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Chelsea]

After reading 3 of the 38 pages I need a definition of poverty in this case in order to answer, or try to answer, this question.

How about not making enough money to pay both rent/itilities and food? Thats just the basic necessities for everyone.

Or a little broader. Working fulltime without medical benefits, unable to pay basic living expenses or choosing between your electric being turned off or getting to work for the week. Choosing between keeping the gas on in winter or having food for the week.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Another cyber detective, or do you have a crystal ball

You just need to read your posts to know that.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

You either can't read or you're stupid:

Really? Here are the deficits during the Bush years, from the White House website.

2002 -157,758
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701
2008 -458,553
2009 -1,412,688

Now use your chart and subtract the interest payment on the debt each year, you can do subtraction right? You will see that even with the tax cuts and the unfunded wars Bush would have had surpluses or very small deficits in many years.

You are so wrong yet you continue to whine like a baby about how much interest Obama has had to pay and how this is the reason the total debt is rising to historical levels.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[Muhammed]

Excuse me!!!!! Not a single soldier died during Clinton's two terms.

LWNJ people like you are so uninformed and disconnected from reality that it would be amusing if it wasn't so sad. Where the hell do you come up with such utterly false statements. A bong? Or what?

You are completely oblivious of the facts.