Bush To The Poor: Fuck You
Poverty gap in US has widened under Bush
update: This article has been confusing for some. Many have conflated poverty and severve poverty. It is primarily severe poverty that the article addresses. Here is a better article covering the same ground. I suggest you read it before commenting.
The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.
The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000. Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population, which recently surpassed the 300 million mark.
The widening of the income gap between haves and have-nots is nothing new in America - it has been going on steadily since the late 1970s. What is new, though, is the rapid increase in numbers at the bottom of the socio-economic pile. The numbers of severely poor have increased faster than any other segment of the population.
(tip to Sarah)
Comments
Isn't it great when articles state such horrible statistics but don't give references we can check?
If any of you are more interested in truth than you are in bashing the president, check some facts. Here is a good place to start: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html
Wow Syngas that was informative.
See Norm, if you're going to post an article like that don't make us have to dig up stats to support it.
Kudos to Syngas on doing some homework to illustrate just how bad the situation really is.
One thing you have to remember when you post something that shows the failings of this administration is include all of the facts so we can get the full scope of the travesty.
Syngas, You selected the one table which gave positive results - the table for "families" below the poverty level.
If you check out the tables for "persons"or "people" below the poverty level, it doesn't look so good.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov22.html Number and Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level 2005...... 293,135 15,928 5.4 2004 14/.. 290,617 15,693 5.4 2003...... 287,699 15,264 5.3 2002...... 285,317 14,068 4.9 2001...... 281,475 13,440 4.8
And here is the percent of persons in poverty by state http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov19.html
I guess you didn't bother to check poverty rates under the Clinton administration huh?
Jo Ann,
Did you notice that the poverty rates you stated are about the same as they were under the Clinton administration?
I am pleased that you guys are at least interested in finding the truth (despite not wanting to believe them) instead of relying on a tabloid from England for your knowledge. Kudos
In 1993 the percent of people below 50% of Pover Level was 6.2. By 2001 it was 4.8.
Wow, Clinton did a great job!
But by 2005, Bush had it back up 5.4
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov22.html
People below 125 Percent of Poverty Level
In 1993 it was 4.8. - By 2001 Bill Clinton had it down to 4.4.
Again, Clinton did a great job!
In 2005 it was down to 4.2.
So Bush did a good job in the area of 125 Percent Percent of Poverty Level (although he didn't do as well as Clinton did), but Bush did a lousy job when looking at those who were 50% below poverty level.
Touché Jo Ann,
You have to admit though that the real statistics on poverty aren't nearly as dire as the picture the author of the article painted.
It was fun, gotta go.
The article is discussing "etreme poverty" and the tables from the census don't indicate this.
Also, even the tables on families show what a good job that Clinton did. Poverty rate for families
In 1993 it was 12.3 - By 2001 Bill Clinton had it down to 9.2. - By 2005 George Bush had it back up to 9.9
It is a good thing that we are aware of the problems. By being aware of what's going on we can all work together to fix the problems.
I understand that it gets a little tiresome being insulted by the Europeans all of the time, but Americans are damned good at insulting back...
No economist would use a census report as a basis of research. Every study I have read for the past ten years points to a widening income gap. It’s a fact. I’m sure that whoever hands out your talking points also has data showing that global warming isn’t happening.
I live in Valencia, Spain’s third largest city. I have traveled around quite a bit here and I have noted that most people live about on an equal level. There are no slums here, and there are no exclusive neighborhoods. Sure there are rich people and Spain’s poverty rate is slightly higher than in the U.S., but this was practically a third world country the first time I visited back in the late 70’s. Now they have national health care, a fantastic public transportation system, and a government that seems to be working hard to meet the needs of all its citizens.
In a recent UNICEF study Spain ranked 5th among western nations in child welfare while the U.S. and Britain were 20th and 21rst. America’s distrust of government and aversion to paying taxes (both created by the economic elite) has done a great disservice to our country and the well being of our citizens. Almost everyone—even a lot of big corporations—now agree that we need some sort of national health care. The problem is we may have missed the boat. Insurance companies squashed this idea back years ago when it would have been relatively feasible.
Every conservative friend that I have believes that we all got where we are today through our own hard work and that others should do the same. They forget that we had great public schools and then went on to study in great public universities that were inexpensive. I paid my way through school as I went and didn’t have to borrow a dime. Try doing that today. My father benefited from the two biggest (and most successful) social welfare programs this country has ever devised: the G.I. Bill and V.A. guaranteed housing loans.
We can do a lot better for everyone in America if we return to a more progressive tax rate that we had before this widening income gap began under Reagan.
Ah, I love it when people on both the left and the right argue about something that they have no expertise in whatsoever! :)
I know! It's almost like watching the Colbert Report!
Well Thomas, your unsupported statement is intended to imply that you have some great wisdom on the subject. Why not put your great wisdom into the public arena and let's see just how much more you actually know.
But of course then you will have to defend your great widom rather than merely proclaim it. I suppose that's the sticky part. eh?
That's a pretty bold statement you made Thomas, I say you should back it up or back down. Since you know so much and everyone else is completely ignorant, according to you. We obviously need your wise counsel.
It is? You don't have to be an expert about something to recognize when people have hardly any clue about what they are discussing.
Also, Thomas' post included a ":)" which means he was trying to be unconfrontational. That means you're not allowed to take it too seriously. ;)
Most interesting is the fact that you all seem to believe the president is solely in charge of how well the economy performs, negating the fact that if Congress doesn't approve his plans, it's as much Congress's fault as his own.
Thomas is right about me ;-} I for one am thankful not to have any first hand experience in extreme poverty.
I did take (and pass) statistics and quality control courses in college and I have no reason to believe the census bureau is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy so I do feel qualified to conclude from the census bureau statistics that extreme poverty remains at relatively low levels in the United States.
This article appears to be less about poverty and more about jealousy. As long as we stake our success on how well we are keeping up with the Jones' we will never really be content with what we have which for the vast majority of us (US citizens) is pretty damn good.
Sorry for the profanity in my last post folks. I was out of line.
Frenetic, the ":)" after such a bold statement has no meaning at all. It does not make a provocative statement 'nice'. It would be rather cowardly if that were the intention.
What? I say screw you and put a smiley on it and suddenly you can't respond? Of course not.
Besides, let Thomas speak for himself, he made the stement. I'm sure he is able to back it up or explain any specific point he was making with his terse statement.
If the subject is whether one has experienced real poverty, there are at least a couple of people around this site that have lived on the streets.
Some of us are from extremely impoverished back grounds. Happily, we aren't the only ones permitted to speak on the subject. On that, I think we agree.
I, personally, prefer to take the non-statistical approach and say that I feel things are going down the shitter just a faster rate. Not to glorify past leaders cause they, as people, naturally have faulted but more taking into account the rhetoric of those currently running the show.
My verdict - things are going down the shitter and faster.
See ! Simple, concise and no stats needed.
Just pure opinion from a nice, liberal (in the non-political party sense) perspective.
Satisfying, n'est ce pas?
Well Jib,
You baffle me but at least you are honest about it
I want to lose 10% of my fingers no more than I want 10% of my tribe to suffer.
Still, remember that without the poor the rich would have nothing to eat but their money.
Hy Syngas, I have no problems finiding the references for the article in question.
The article has said that it is based on "an analysis of 2005 official census data... by the McClatchy group of newspapers".
The independent article is based on this one actually.
U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty By Tony Pugh McClatchy Newspapers Posted on Thu, Feb. 22, 2007
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16760690.htm
The McClatchy Newspapers' analysis quotes this recent study by American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Perhaps you can do some anaysis on the data for us?
========
The Rising Prevalence of Severe Poverty in America
A Growing Threat to Public Health. 26 June 2006
By Steven H. Woolf MD, MPHa, b, , , Robert E. Johnson PhDa, c and H. Jack Geiger MD, MSd
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?ob=ArticleURL&udi=B6VHT-4KWYKY4-3&user=10&coverDate=10%2F31%2F2006&alid=543615292&rdoc=6&fmt=summary&orig=search&cdi=6075&sort=d&docanchor=&view=c&ct=69&acct=C000050221&version=1&urlVersion=0&userid=10&md5=64b866eaa78608a60fd8df1843aaadcf
Background The U.S. poverty rate has increased since 2000, but the depth of poverty experienced by Americans has been inadequately studied. Of particular concern is whether severe poverty is increasing, a trend that would carry important public health implications.
Methods Income-to-poverty (I/P) ratios and income deficits/surpluses were examined for the 1990–2004 period. The severely poor, moderately poor, and near-poor were classified as those with I/P ratios of less than 0.5, 0.5 to 1.0, or 1.0 to 2.0, respectively. Income deficits/surpluses were classified relative to the poverty threshold as Tier I (deficit $8000 or more), Tier II (deficit or surplus less than $8000), or Tier III (surplus more than $8000). Odds ratios for severe poverty and Tier I were also calculated.
Results Severe poverty increased between 2000 and 2004—those with I/P ratios of less than 0.5 grew by 20%, and Tier I grew by 45% to 55%—while the prevalence of higher levels of income diminished. The population in severe poverty was over-represented by children (odds ratio [OR]=1.69, confidence interval [CI]=1.63–1.75), African Americans (OR=2.84, CI=2.74–2.95), and Hispanics (OR=1.64, CI=1.58–1.71).
Conclusions From 2000 to 2004, the prevalence of severe poverty increased sharply while the proportion of Americans in higher income tiers diminished. These trends have broad societal implications. Likely health consequences include a higher prevalence of chronic illnesses, more frequent and severe disease complications, and increased demands and costs for healthcare services. Adverse effects on children warrant special concern. The growth in the number of Americans living in poverty calls for the re-examination of policies enacted in recent years to foster economic progress.
Thanks Kes,
I believe the Bush bashing was done by Norm. I'm fine with that - it is his blog after all ;-}
BTW When I use ;-}, I'm trying to be non-confrontational.
Hi Syngas, Norm was hardly bashing Bush as the poverty rates worsened during Bush watch.
Kindly note that Bush campaigned on compassionate conservatism but focuses on giving tax breaks to big businesses and tax cuts to the rich by cutting social programmes.
Case in point. I have never been more nauseated by conservative attempts to blame 9-11 on Clinton for doing nothing in the last month of his Presidency after the Cole when Bush did nothing for the first 8 months of his Presidency
So if Bush had increased spending on social programs by more than any president since LBJ, he would have fulfilled his promise to be a compassionate conservative? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-federal-entitlements_x.htm
CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that … there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000]. Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration’s watch." I didn’t think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, NOW that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded. … RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. … We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn’t want to respond tit-for-tat. …Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists — they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them — and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.
"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?" Fmr. Nat. Comm. On terrorism chairman Paul Bremer (Feb. 26. 2001)
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later complains that by the time the new administration is in place, the Cole bombing was “stale.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld concurs, stating that too much time had passed to respond. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
9/11 served the neocons interests, all according to their own document "RAD".
Poverty gap in US has widened under Bush http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2308416.ece
Super-rich hide trillions offshore http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1446127,00.html
Government: 754,000 People Are Homeless (a lot of them are of course veterans) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1446127,00.html
Childhood poverty comes at great cost to U.S. economy Children who grow up poor in the United States cost the economy $500 billion a year because they are less productive, earn less money, commit more crimes and have more health-related expenses, according to a new study.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/poor.php
Yeah, it's wiki but here's it anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Poverty1973toPresent.jpg
To prove that Bush is a compassionate conservative, you will have to prove that Bush willingly increased federal spending on social programmes, rather than the increasing numbers of the poor are necessaitating the increase in social spending.
Your article actually proves my point that under Bush, poverty expanded. The increasing size of the programmes are due to Congress efforts and the increasing number of "eligibles"
"... Robert Greenstein, head of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, says the growth in the number of people in many programs is due to a rise in the poverty rate from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, the most recent year available. "It's certainly better that people falling into poverty can get Medicaid, but I'd prefer fewer poor people and employers not dropping medical coverage," he says...."
Do consider reading the second half of your article closely again, as well read up on Bush's proposed budgets on just how little he wants to spend on the poor as well as veterans and students.
Hi 1984, thanks for the references, which buttress mypoints. I will read them now.
Are you new here?
9-10% is dire in my book.
I'm a lazy fuck, does anyone have comparative figures from other western democracies.
Your right guys. America sucks.
Goodnight
Hi Syngas, no offense intended. I have no beef with you.
I'm also not an American and I love a lot of stuff from America.
But I have zero patience with Bush and his broken promises, as well as the consequences of his actions. My problem with him is not that he's an idiot but that he treats people like idiots and that he thinks he can get away with anything.
Why should anyone still give Bush a break?
Do consider reading David Kuo's book on how Bush turned his back on the compassionate/poor agenda.
I do think you contributed some strong points to this thread or I would not have read your points or resources.
"... In many developed countries the official definition of poverty used for statistical purposes is based on relative income. As such many critics argue that poverty statistics measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. For instance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage).[8] Furthermore, the measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 50% of the median household income. The US poverty line is more arbitrary. It was created in 1963-64 and was based on the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "economy food plan" multiplied by a factor of three. The multiplier was based on research showing that food costs then accounted for about one third of the total money income. This one-time calculation has since been annually updated for inflation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
In retrospect, syngas has a point in that US poverty rates are not as dire as many Bush opponents say they are in that what is considered poor is middle class or higher middle class in other countries.
However, since United States set its moral benchmarks for basic human rights higher than any other country, people should hold the US government to the same standards that it use to pass judgement on other countries.
See folks! When we (left and right) choose to leave out rhetoric, meaningful discussions are possible. Now if our leaders could do the same, maybe something constructive would happen. I'm not gonna hold my breath though ;-}
Thanks for the spirited discussion!
Your right, every 3.6 seconds someone dies due to starvation, the majority of those people are under the age of five. And 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day in this world. Now that's not right, especially considering the United States could end global poverty with $19 billion annually until 2015. I think it's time we start fighting a more noble and more important battle.
Quick comment about "poverty not being what it is in other countries".
Does that really matter? $5,000 a year person/$10,000 a year per family is pretty damn poor in this country. That means that the number of families that have one person working at minimum wage is increasing..
This has nothing to do with bush, this has everything to do with America's economy and the future of america as a world power. "things fall apart, the center will not hold"
It is not an either or question.
QUESTION: How does US poverty levels compare to other, industrialized, Western nations? Like England, France, Sweden, or Italy?
Good question Dzwonka,
Unfortunately, poverty is a difficult thing to compare in contrasting societies.
For example in many European cities, owning a car is a luxury most people dont have (or need) but in most of the US, not owning a car is a serious limitation.
Also, while there are likely a higher percentage of poor in European countries, our government is less likely to provide basic services like health care, food, housing, travel etc... like most of Europe does.
Being poor in America can be a dangerous position to be in so most of us work very hard to avoid it. Being poor in Europe means hot having money to buy the things you want but it won't seriously endanger your life. It makes sense that people wouldn't be as motivated to avoid poverty when the government enables it so comparing incomes of the poor wouldn't really tell you much.
Poverty rates tell you plenty. If our poverty rates are higher, we are failing. Period. We can do better.
One of the greatest disservices done to this country is by the “America is the greatest country on earth” crowd. We are a great country but this idiotic chauvinism by people who, by and large, haven’t been anywhere else limits our vision of what we can and should be.
The notion that if government provides certain services for its citizens it will somehow make them less enterprising is laughable. A nation’s poverty level and inequality of income is about the only way you can judge the effectiveness of that society. Blaming poor people for being poor went out of vogue sometime before the Milton Freidman, Chicago School of Economics laid the intellectual foundation for the “Reagan Revolution” which lowered taxes for the segment of society least in need of a government handout.
We can be a society that allows the elite to own yet another home in Davos, Switzerland, or we can provide basic services like health care, public transportation, education, and housing. Everyone who works full-time should be able to live a decent life. This is no longer the case in America. Think about that the next time you oppose a minimum wage bill. Europe is far from perfect but they have evolved into a much more inclusive society than America.
We're still waiting for Thomas to provide us with his wisdom on this topic.
QUESTION: How does US poverty levels compare to other, industrialized, Western nations? Like England, France, Sweden, or Italy?
Wikipedia provides a entry level answer with some background:
"... In many developed countries the official definition of poverty used for statistical purposes is based on relative income. As such many critics argue that poverty statistics measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. For instance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage).[8] Furthermore, the measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 50% of the median household income. The US poverty line is more arbitrary. It was created in 1963-64 and was based on the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "economy food plan" multiplied by a factor of three. The multiplier was based on research showing that food costs then accounted for about one third of the total money income. This one-time calculation has since been annually updated for inflation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
The one aspect of all of these comments and wanting to blame a President or anyone else is the lack of Responsibility and Accountability of the actual individual who is homeless.
It's intellectually dishonest to not lay the personal responsibility of homelessness on the individual who is homeless. Our nation is replete with services, upwards of billions of dollars spent, available; there are colleges filled with scholarships, grants, loans, by which an individual can educated and thereby move ahead; there are numerous shelters by which people can utilize to get on their feet to pursue these goals.
I observe quite often the giving of a quarter or dollar to homeless people on the subway; this only propagates more of the same irresponsible behavior, leaving the "giver" with getting their jollies by thinking they're doing good when they are contributing toward the pathology of the homeless and the disease within our society.
Many companies and individuals give generously to charities, which require criteria to benefit from; you cannot be handing out money to those who cannot be entrusted with personal responsibility to use those dollars to further their situation, better.
I tell you this, those that are in the position of poverty, no matter how much money given, would end up in poverty again because it is in his/her nature to live in such a manner when responsibility and accountability are lacking in qualities from within.
Who created the individual to be homeless? The individual.
“Poverty rates tell you plenty. If our poverty rates are higher, we are failing. Period. We can do better.”
Yes, this is equivalent to my getting a grade of A+ on my research paper because I spent weeks preparing and you getting an F+ because you only wanted to try and get it done the night before it was due.
Your mind has walked off the map. The idea of blaming anyone other than the individual for his/her homelessness is beyond dishonest, it’s simply stupid logic, if logic is even part of the equation.
You understand nothing of behavior if you believe that it is my responsibility or yours to make sure that our next-door neighbor doesn’t fall into poverty because of a series of stupid choices, which led to the demise of our neighbor’s plight.
The man working on Wall Street making enormous amounts of money starts using alcohol when something goes well for the day. This leads to other drugs after a while to increase the euphoria when alcohol no longer works. In doing so, the man loses his family because they can no longer tolerate his erratic behavior; his job suffers; his brain is starting to deteriorate; his judgment is no longer valid; he loses his job; his family is gone; he uses the last of his dollars, retirement funds and investment money for more drugs/alcohol; he loses his home; declares bankruptcy; is out on the street because he can no longer manage his life responsibly.
You’re right – it’s all society’s fault for the irresponsible choices this man had and the many opportunities to change the direction of his life.
Interesting perspective Greg, I agree with you to a point but having known a few homeless people, I don't think it is entirely fair to blame them alone. Many of them have mental illnesses, substance addiction (drugs or alcohol), or were just raised in such a dysfunctional environment that the self discipline necessary to pull yourself out of poverty was never demonstrated to them.
I understand your point of charitable passers-by enabling their lifestyle and have been shocked to find out just how much money some of them are able to collect by begging. That said, I don't believe acts of kindness should be discouraged.
"Many of these people are mentally ill...what's wrong with you?"
Yes, many are mentally ill, so do you think that your giving them a quarter or a dollar to continue behaving and living in ill-health without getting the help they need, is really a good idea?
Super!
Feeling pretty happy with yourself, are ya, for doing your good deed of the day?
Or are you just deflecting your own sense of guilt in hopes that god looks with favor on you for working hard, earning money, and doing well for yourself?
Why should our society redistribute the hard earned money each of us works for so that those who are irresponsible can continue down their path of destruction?
If I work hard for my money, what right do you have to that money? NONE! You didn't work for it; you didn't earn it.
Go get a job. Get a better education. Increase your own situation instead thinking everyone owes you something.
The sense of entitlement in this nation is astounding.
You're only entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. You figure out how to do it, stop relying on everyone else to do it for you.
I didn't say they were entitled to our charity Greg. If they were, it wouldn't be charity. Sometimes being shown compassion from a complete stranger is what inspires people to better themselves.
I know many people on this blog are big believers in Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest but ultimately we are all going to die. It won't matter how big our house is, how shiny our cars are or how much money we have in our retirement accounts at that point, the people who will get it all probably don't deserve it any more than the man sleeping in your dumpster. I don't want people at my funeral thinking 'He sure had a lot of cool stuff... too bad he never learned to share.'
I just read your blog Greg. I don't know if you were visiting 1gm when the story about people refusing to vote for atheists posted but what your blog outlines is exactly why people are scared to be ruled by atheists.
I know many people on this blog are big believers in Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest
Oh, nonsense. Believing in Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't mean that one believes in a dog eat dog world.
I don't at all agree with what Greg has said. I read his blog too and noticed that he enjoys the use of the exclamation mark! It's as though everything he has to say is so important!
Greg to the poor. Fuck you!
Greg, your statement that the poor should be blamed for being poor sounds elitist to me.
Most of the rich in US are born rich and they enter society with a host of advantages and privileges as if they are like nobility.
Much of the poor are born poor with little prospects of moving up the income bracket.
With stagnant wages for entry level and even middle level workers, the American Dream is becoming increaingly beyond the reach of many in USA.
Small businesses are driven to the ground by the relentless competition from bug corporations, which compete by pressing down wages and brining in cheap groups with the help of economies of scale.
Jobs are going overseas.
For a select few, they may yet take their place among the rich.
But for the rest, welfare is the only recourse the poor have at the moment.
Next time you want to preach about blaming the poor for being poor, I really think you should take the time to study the facts of the issue.
Hey Kes,
You are great at regurgitating propaganda but if you are going to make such blanket statements, it seems only fair that you back it up with facts. Not living here, I don't blame you for believing what the left-wing media feeds you about the US. Being someone who values research so much, I urge you to visit the Department of Labor website to see if much of what you have been fed is really true. I think you will be pleasantly surprised that your claims are greatly exaggerated.
The middle and lower income group in USA is faring worse than expected in the last 6 years.
This is based on my readings of the econpmic news coming from US from the New York Times and Wahsington Post.
I'm sorry if you prefer a more positive depiction of reality that is not fact-based.
Last time, I checked. It's called Bush world.
I hate to break it to ya Kes but the NYT and Washington Post are both very left wing newspapers.
Knowing your propensity exhaust yourself with internet research, I gather your lack of a link filled response is an acknowledgment you were wrong about just how poor we all are here in the US.
Syngas, Are you implying that the NYT and the Washington Post are not reliable sources of information? If so, which publications would you recommend?
Thats right Jo Ann, The NYT and Washington Post are great at twisting facts to mislead their readers. They are guilty of the same things you all accuse Fox News of but it is always skewed to the left. If the president happens to be a Republican, you will never see positive information about the economy in the NYT or the Washington Post even though the economy is doing very well. Admitting the economy is doing well might tempt some of their readers to vote for a Republican. Now if a Democrat is elected to the Presidency, you will see a never ending stream of articles telling us how great our economy is doing.
You don't need a newspaper to tell you facts about economics. The US Department of Labor. the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the US Census bureau are filled with detailed information on every aspect of the economy.
Norm doesn't want me to post too many links here but here is a great place to start if you want un-editorialized information.
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
The BLS website isn't the most user friendly site but with a few pointers, you can get some very useful info:
Click on the little green dinosaurs to the left of a stat to get historical info on that stat.
You might need to select that you want the info in graph form. Raw stats can be difficult to decipher.
Many of the charts are interactive. You can select how many years to go back when requesting a graph.
I hope that helps.
It's quite interesting the responses to my posts. NOT ONE of you even addressed the idea of Responsibility and Accountability to the individual.
Someone even made the ridiculous complaint of ! points on some of my writing. Yes, it's a mark of exasperation at stupidity in our society, you who wrote that, to you as well!!!!!! you just don’t get it!!!!
The idea of delegating personal Responsibility and Accountability to any one other than the self is diseased at all levels.
The precept of “some are born rich, some are born poor”, yes it’s true. But whose responsibility is it to stop having children if they can’t afford to raise them? Whose responsibility is it to stop having sex without contraception? Certainly not mine and certainly not yours. Are we to not encourage and educate about the idea of delayed gratification in our society? “If you don’t have the education or monetary wherewithal to raise children, it’s probably not a good idea. Find other ways to contribute to society without burdening society with more problems.”
Why is this concept so difficult to accept? Because it dismantles so much of the victimization/feeling oriented types in our society who want to delegate personal CHOICES in life to someone else’s fault.
“Oh you want to create an Aryan nation of only certain types…blah, blah”. No and yes. No, I don’t want to have some Nazi type world, but yes I would like to continue to limit the people who want to be irresponsible in our society, hopefully to the extent that they either don’t breed or they get their act together and then breed.
Look, if you want to take issue with something I’ve written I have no problem with that, but you reveal your inability to have logical debate when you start attacking a ! point, or semantics, or anything other than the subject at hand. You do this to deflect and distract from the content of what’s being said, because you have nothing to stand on and thus, stand for nothing.
“I just read your blog Greg. I don't know if you were visiting 1gm when the story about people refusing to vote for atheists posted but what your blog outlines is exactly why people are scared to be ruled by atheists.”
It’s interesting that the religious want to subvert and abandoned all logic along with reason, along with empirical scientific evidence. Frankly, I care nothing about someone wanting to believe in some mythological figurehead to whom they can delegate his/her personal responsibility for choices in life as long as they aren’t governing our nation.
Sam Harris said it perfectly, we wouldn’t take someone serious if they believed Elvis still lived and think that person inappropriate to serve in office if they went even further to pray to him.
Only by social consciousness raising are we going to rid ourselves of the cancer that is religion. It does not move people to do good because it’s good to do; it does not give us our morals; it does not propagate charity; it does not do anything except control, manipulate, cajole, threaten and place fear in people to behave lest they be damned. Noble goals? Religious behavior is the most ignoble thing one can base his/her decisions on and he/she should not be taken seriously.
“Greg, your statement that the poor should be blamed for being poor sounds elitist to me.”
Then you do not understand what it means to be personally responsible and accountable. This may be something for you to research within yourself to how you delegate these precepts to others, thereby finding yourself victim to life, others, and choice. This is not an insult, it’s a call to look within about the projection that often accompanies your statement.
“Next time you want to preach about blaming the poor for being poor, I really think you should take the time to study the facts of the issue.”
Actually, some facts your way would support you in understanding more about business, how it works, the idea of moving jobs out of the U.S., etc. I refer you to John Stossle’s books. In both his books he gives amazing accounts about these issues with which you perhaps have only heard one part of the story.
It is your responsibility as a citizen of this nation to educate yourself on both sides of an issue before spouting off about it and furthering the “sound-bite-headline-only citizen” attitude. If you refuse to accept this responsibility and to do your own research, then you are part of the problem and have little to do with the solutions needed.
Your concept of personal responsibility at the least discounts the fact that the playing field is not level and at worst ignores it. There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility it is a good thing, but you seem unwilling to consider how ones environment makes realizing your ideal of personal responsibility more difficult for some, you seem to think that being personally responsible operates in a vacuum.
For those interested in research, here's some interesting information.
The left will have people believe that taxing the top 5% of income producers at more than 33% will provide all the necessary supports and services needed for the bottom 20% on income producers. Along a more conservative fiscal viewpoint, I am of the position that a 33% tax on the highest of incomes is the maximum cap beneficial to all Americans. When investors are taxed at 33% and less, they continue to place capital into ventures which result in more products, increased services, increased salaries, new employment opportunities, an increase in GDP and therefore an increase in tax revenues for the federal government.
The left also slants the analysis of the numbers to make the tax benefit to the “rich” appear to be grossly in favor of the “rich” at the expense of all the rest of the American tax payers. Here is an overly simplified, hypothetical microcosm which best represents my point. In my fictional country there are 2 people. Person number one makes $50,000 in taxable income at a 10% tax bracket resulting in $5,000 and person number two makes $500,000 in taxable income at a 50% tax bracket resulting in $250,000. The newly proposed tax plan will reduce person number one’s tax burden by 3% lowering the final tax to $3,500. Person number two will receive a 2% reduction lowering the final tax to $240,000. All of the following statements would be correct about this scenario:
Conservative View
*Lower income tax burdens dropped 150% more than higher income tax burdens.
*50% of the lowest income population received a higher tax reduction than the richest 50%
*Middle income tax payers are paying only $3,500 on average while the upper 50% of income producers are paying $240,000 of their income. Is it fair that one group is paying so much more in taxes?
*The upper 50% of income producers are paying 98.5% of the total dollars in taxes paid.
·Liberal View
*The total tax savings to all Americans is $11,500. The rich received 87% of the tax reductions.
It's too easy to just repeat sound-bites without doing the research yourself. Look to actual FACTS not some EMOTIONAL response.
1+1=2 That's a fact! Stick with the facts, it will make your smarter, less emotional, and you can be more responsible as a result.
My post about taxes isn't to say that this Administration isn't overspending, they are, I'm just not caught up in the hate Bush or hate Clinton ideas, I care nothing about that, I care about the bigger picture.
You should, too.
“Your concept of personal responsibility at the least discounts the fact that the playing field is not level and at worst ignores it. There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility it is a good thing, but you seem unwilling to consider how ones environment makes realizing your ideal of personal responsibility more difficult for some, that being personally responsible operates in a vacuum”
Who the hell ever said the playing field had to be level for everyone! What world do you live in?
You don’t see for yourself that your comment is from a victimized stance. There is NOTHING in life that is on a level playing field. You get the cards you’re dealt and do the best you can. If you want a better life, go to college, go to a trade school, stop spending your time and money on waste; be cautious the moments you spend, you never get them back.
Blaming others for your poor choices is never responsible. Be accountable for your own actions or lack thereof.
What's with you Greg did you roll over on your copy of Atlas Shrugged last night and didn't get your full eight hours.
You've totally mischaracterized what I said, read it again.
Do you think the idea of providing an equal opportunity for an education for example is a good idea? No one says the playing has to be level but that it would be a good idea for a society to strive to make it more-so.
"Do you think the idea of providing an equal opportunity for an education for example is a good idea?"
And how is it that we are not providing everyone with this opportunity?
Are there no scholarships?
Are there no grants?
Are there no loans?
These are all means by which people attend college and trade school everyday.
It IS so, just because you're unable to see it doesn't mean it isn't so.
And at what age do we apply choice as a means to responsible behavior rooted in accountability?
When do we raise the level of anxiety to those who need this in order to make change come about? Or do we just 'baby' them for all time, plead their plight, blame others, and allow them to propagate further their disease?
You can throw any scenario out but the bottom line will always be Responsibility and Accountability to the individual.
If you think it's society's fault then you don't understand these concepts.
There isn't a situation where you cannot distill it down to one's choices, based on being responsible, likewise, accountable.
Anyone who does otherwise is doing great injustice to our nation and societies everywhere.
Ad-hominem statements just show you have few debate skills for discussion.
I said equal.
Oh and that's it for me you've demonstrated that you'll continue to misconstrue others statements and that we're not going to get a meaningful discussion from you but for smug libertarian soundbites.
How is it NOT equal?
Fine, you can abandon the debate, but you don't explain how things aren't EQUAL.
"but for smug libertarian soundbites."
More personal attacks rather than logical debate. Thanks for revealing your true nature, then.
Gregg:
You seem to advocate for a Social Darwinism approach which I won't debate.
What I would ask is if this is the approach you feel should be taken then why give tax cuts to the dominant (most wealthy) in a society? A flat tax would make more sense yet that's not what we have so how do you expect Social Darwinism to work with government interference?
There are two primary examples of how to build a society. Western Europe has a much more equitable distribution of income than the U.S. You won’t find the sort of desperate slums endemic in large cities in our country. On the other hand you have Latin America where poverty is rampant and the great majority of the wealth and resources are in the hands of a small percentage of the population. You can either look upon taxes as punishment or the privilege you must pay to be a part of society.
"Taking responsibility for your actions" is one of those tired phrases of the right. Rush Limbaugh harps on that but when he got caught being a drug addict he blamed it on a bum back. After many years of skiing and martial arts my back is a mess but I only take drugs for recreational purposes. Drugs won't help my back.
My father benefited from two of the biggest government handouts in our history: the G.I. Bill and a V.A. guaranteed home loan. He must be the biggest deadbeat in history to a "I pulled myself up by my boot straps" guy like Greg.
I find it curious that the Right believes in some form of social Darwinism but not the biology of Darwin, but even in this they misinterpret him. He said that it is not the strongest, nor the most intelligent who survive, but those who adapt. I think that American society needs to adapt by observing other societies that, in some ways, function a lot better than ours. If you don’t think that other countries are doing a better job of caring for their citizens, you need to get out more
"then why give tax cuts to the dominant (most wealthy) in a society?"
I'm afraid you didn't read my post regarding the tax cuts and how it works.
Quite often the media does not do justice to bringing about comprehenisve understanding of how it works, thereby everyone gets the sound-bite and runs with it.
Truly, if you have researched it you cannot come to any other conclusion than that which I have written. Facts and figures don't lie, newspapers do.
Quite a few Americans have no understanding of economics, getting their information from the news on economics is like getting religion from a whore house.
Did you roll over on your copy of Atlas Shrugged last night
Ad hominem, well then let me add humor impaired.
but for smug libertarian soundbites
Sorry Greg, but you can't expect anyone to engage you in serious debate when your tone is one of condescension, and you make little effort to understand the arguments others make and simply caricature them.
"the G.I. Bill and a V.A. guaranteed home loan"
These are not handouts. You don't understand the basis for what you're talking about.
These are programs constituted as BENEFITS for serving one's nation. As with any JOB, one receives benefits for doing the job.
These BENEFITS give one opportunity to further one's life.
Your father serving our country could do no greater service than being a part of defending our democracy and freedom.
You truly don’t understand what these benefits are, otherwise you wouldn’t call them handouts.
Welfare is a handout.
Entitlement programs are handouts.
Loans are not handouts. Scholarships are based on hard work and accomplishments. Grants are opportunities for lower income individuals to advance in society, thereby giving back to society.
You fall to the "victimization" mantra that seems ubiquitous in aspects of our society; contempt prior to investigation.
I did read it and your logic is flawed.
The two people you cite work exactly the same amount of time and should pay the exact same percentage of income. It does not matter if one is over paid or not.
You dodged the question though.
What's amusing is that Greg thinks that what he's saying is something no one here has ever heard before!!! How can that be??!! We're Americans dangit!
It reminds me of what someone said in this article: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/3/5/290/06967
Sound familiar?
"The two people you cite work exactly the same amount of time and should pay the exact same percentage of income. It does not matter if one is over paid or not."
Yes, if we were Communistic or Socialistic, my understanding of those economic ideas, it would certainly follow.
But, I'm not going to be working as a Manager and expect to be paid what the fellow across the counter at McDonald's is being paid. I went to college, I made the sacrifice, I made responsible choices.
Not sure why you think that everyone should be paid the same; you probably like Unions then. Another way to delegate personal responsibility rather than making your own contract and being accountable for your behavior at work which would/would not advance/decline you as an individual.
Again, you do not understand Responsibility and Accountability, read my earlier posts yesterday.
And if you think that the logic is flawed, that's because you think everyone should be paid the same, that's not how Capitalism works; we live in a Democracy because we didn't like the other types of societal ideas like Communism, Socialism, etc.
Since we were founded as a Democracy and you don't like it, I'm not sure why you haven't relocated to another form of government throughout the world that would support your ideals better?
I guess that's because we're all supposed to change to fit your whims rather than you making a responsible decision to move so as to find that which supports your view of life in government.
Now, I have to go to work where I'm paid a considerable amount of money for my education and experience to Manage other individuals who have chosen NOT to pursue those goals even though they were available to them.
I will then pay my taxes, which I gladly turn over a portion of to help fund the G.I. Bill and the V.A. benefits for our soldiers to partake of upon their return from ANY war or ANY military service.
Jo Ann, you refuse to understand the concepts of personal Responsibility and Accountability, therefore you are unable to comment on the subject since you can't get out of the "victim" stance within you that wants to delegate these two precepts to others rather than the self.
You can continue your mantra, but your view of life is distorted. Until you accept personal responsibility for your own choices in life, which lead you down many various roads, then you cannot apply the same concept to others, hence societies.
If you feel like a victim then you think all people should feel the same. This is the distortion. This is the disease.
It's time to quit feeding the troll, don't ya think?
Take your last shot if you must. I'll be closing this thread later today.
Norm was right you really are condecending and arrogant.
What makes you think I didn't work as hard as you supposedly did to get where I am? For all we know you work at McDonalds as a manager.
You think it's hard to become a manager?
I never said people should be paid the same as you claim. I asked how you expect Social Darwinism to work with government interference. I guess that question is too advanced for you to understand.
Sorry, didn't see your post.
I agree.
Hey Dar,
There are no sorrys here. You're going to have to take personal responsibility for your actions. :)
Parting shot.. :)
I don't feel like a victim. I have an MBA and I'm doing just fine thank you. I was thinking rather about other people.
Except I have a good defense attorney. :)