http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16764023.htm

Quote :

"The analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent between 2000 and 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to urban counties."

Quote :

"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years. These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the past three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine."

This isnt just about race.

Quote :

"All told, nearly two out of three people (10.3 million) in severe poverty are white, but blacks (4.3 million) and Hispanics of any race (3.7 million) have a higher rate of deep poverty."

So I dont accused of posting something with no discussion, this is the face of tax cuts for the rich. Bush embraced Reaganomics and took it to a place that Congress never let us go in the 80s. When you starve social programs for 30 years, refuse to raise the minimum wage and encourage the worst aspects of capitalism (allowing things like competition to become buzzwords with no meaning) this is what you get

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 12:48 PM. Reason : discussion]

2/23/2007 12:45:35 PM

the rich get richer and the po' get po'er.

2/23/2007 12:47:45 PM

Quote :

""How do we break that cycle?" she asked. Metz was among about 400 community leaders who gathered Thursday at the Charlotte Convention Center to discuss affordable housing. But she said the fix needs to go beyond housing. She advocates for more vocational education to help train the poorest in specific jobs so that they can pay for that affordable housing, plus food and day care. It's going to cost money, she said. But she added, "We pay now or we pay later." "

How can you force someone to willingly participate in vocational education and training and learn enough from it to get a job they can do sufficiently? It just seems to me like the solution they are giving to help this problem is to better equip the poor people with better job skills...which makes sense...but didnt they originally have the opportunity to learn a lot of these things as part of their primary education?

2/23/2007 12:48:58 PM

And ya just know the 2001 recession had nothing to do with the statistics. Nope, it was all tax cuts. Sure, we know of no mechanism by which tax cuts make the poor poorer, but correlation always means causation. [/sarcasm]

2/23/2007 12:50:01 PM

oh, as for the discussion about poor people in urban settings getting to work that we had a while ago, thought you guys might like this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960673/site/newsweek/from/ET/

Quote :

"But for the first time in history, more of America's poor are living in the suburbs than the cities—1.2 million more, according to a 2005 survey."

2/23/2007 12:51:49 PM

im glad you read the article. hell you couldnt even be bothered to read the quotes i included, which give a much rosier picture of the post 2001 economy than i would ever be willing to do.

2/23/2007 12:53:14 PM

so many fallacies, so little time interest... 

2/23/2007 12:53:31 PM

Quote :

"But for the first time in history, more of America's poor are living in the suburbs than the cities"

couldnt this be attributed to people buying more than they can afford...like "oh i make 40k a year I will go ahead and buy a 400k house"

2/23/2007 12:55:50 PM

so these people arent really poor?

thank god trickledown economics works. praise the lord. tgd has set me straight. can anyone send me a link so i can join the republican party?

2/23/2007 12:55:55 PM

So, if I am a father of two and friggin' rich with a $400k house and $100k in the bank but I manage to quit/lose my job from December 2003 to January 2005, would my family be classified as "living in extreme Poverty" since my income was less than $9,903 for the year?

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/23/2007 1:02:42 PM

Quote :

"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years."

This bothers me more than anything. If the economy is truly buzzing along, then someone is profiting all this money. Where is it going? Back into capital investment? Into CEO pockets? Wasted?

I've felt it over the past two years my work load has gone up a good bit, but my pay hasn't all that much.

2/23/2007 1:05:37 PM

^^no.

2/23/2007 1:06:36 PM

^ Why?

2/23/2007 1:06:57 PM

Quote :

"$400k house and $100k in the bank"

thats why

2/23/2007 1:10:22 PM

Quote :

"A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of the 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 -- half the federal poverty line -- was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year."

Didn't mention how much wealth they had, or how much they were receiving from the EITC, or how much illegal income they had. If this "16 million" is to be trusted then we need to know how it is calculated, and I damn sure hope it does not count "retired and living off savings" as "living in extreme poverty".

2/23/2007 1:13:52 PM

Quote :

"tax cuts for the rich."

Not this tired regurgitation again....

Those of us who work for a living probably have a better understanding of this than what you read on blogs.

I, and many others here who are out of school are far from rich, and greatly benefitted from the tax cuts.

2/23/2007 2:26:31 PM

Quote :

"I, and many others here who are out of school are far from rich, and greatly benefitted from the tax cuts."

I could have sworn I remembered you bragging about a six-figure income or some such...

2/23/2007 2:30:09 PM

not me.

I wish I had a six figure income.

2/23/2007 2:42:02 PM

Must have been someone else.

2/23/2007 2:43:44 PM

I have a 5 figure income. Whether I got a tax cut or not is irrelevant, I want another one.

In fact, I think everyone should get a nice big tax cut!

2/23/2007 3:16:45 PM

Everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. So because the poor got poorer is due to tax cuts? Are you kidding me. I guess the gubment should supplement everyones income? You should just blame the poor getting poorer on global warming. We provide too much of an incentive for people NOT to work in this country as it is.

2/23/2007 6:33:41 PM

Some say that taxing the rich more heavily is class warfare. But then again, the rich engage in class warfare everyday, so it only makes sense to return the favor.

2/23/2007 6:49:06 PM

i disagree with your generalization that all rich people are somehow manipulating the poor...plenty of wealthy people got there by working hard (some didnt i know) and plenty of poor people dont choose to make their own best effort to improve their own financial situation

that is all

2/23/2007 6:55:53 PM

thats true. the rich, as if they were some sort of super secret salisburybot club, dont participate in class warfare.

but the bush administration does, and is damn proud of it.

2/23/2007 7:44:22 PM

you know that pretty much all high level politicians, democrats, republican, independent, whatever...are also in that high tax bracket, right?

not to mention they're probably all there with their pensions + post political income too

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 7:46:18 PM

not all of them are. but im not sure what that has to do with this.
or are you saying that the rich are in fact a super secret club?

2/23/2007 7:48:50 PM

i'm obviously saying that it benefits the politicians from all parties to give tax cuts to the rich...its not like its magically the republicans who are all rich and then a bunch of poor democrats in office who are in a lower class bracket

2/23/2007 7:52:27 PM

that makes a ton of assumptions.

not all rich people support tax cuts for the rich, and not all poor people support higher taxes on the rich. i know why people say, "poor people are being lied to about social issues so they vote against their own best economic interest" but its bullshit.

the point is, opinions on economic issues have very little to do with ones actual wealth, from what i have seen.

2/23/2007 8:09:29 PM

well, one reason is because wealth, in and of itself, is not taxed.

just income.

2/23/2007 8:11:32 PM

^^i'm talking about the high level politicians who could actually get the tax legislation pass...i'd be surprised if more than a few senators or representatives arent in the top bracket

2/23/2007 8:14:43 PM

you are right twista. It takes a ton of money to get elected senator, no doubt they are all in the higher brackets.

2/23/2007 8:19:36 PM

of course there are tons of rich politicians. there are a ton of people who get rich after they go into politics too (which is beyond shady). But there are also some people in congress who are poor, and some are middle class. most are rich, but that is more an extension of campaigns in the modern world.

still dont see what this has to do with any tax legislation.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ^ http://opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S&sort=A]

2/23/2007 8:20:31 PM

Quote :

"But there are also some people in congress who are poor"

are you factoring in their base salary of ~$150,000/year? you know, their taxable income? Is that "poor" to you?

2/23/2007 8:27:21 PM

true. i should have said poor before they got into congress.

2/23/2007 9:20:30 PM

Quote :

"thats true. the rich, as if they were some sort of super secret salisburybot club, dont participate in class warfare. but the bush administration does, and is damn proud of it."

What the fuck are you talking about?

I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black, but in this case the kettle isn't even black.

Where is the class warfare from the Bush administration? Giving tax cuts across the board? Trying to let people keep more of the money they earned?

Don't say that refusing to expand social programs is class warfare. Class warfare is a tool of fascists and populists to mobilize one group of people against another. If you want to talk about exploiting the poor, you need to use another term because "class warfare" doesn't fit the bill.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 10:04 PM. Reason : 2]

2/23/2007 9:39:14 PM

Quote :

"When you starve social programs for 30 years, refuse to raise the minimum wage and encourage the worst aspects of capitalism (allowing things like competition to become buzzwords with no meaning) this is what you get"

What social program's budget has ever been cut? Spending has increased every year.

The minimum wage hurts low-skilled job-seekers.

Who exactly is encouraging the worst aspects of capitalism? Who is allowing "competition" to become a buzzword and how is that damaging to anyone?

Please explain.

2/23/2007 11:43:28 PM

raising min wage causes job loss for min wage earners.. it always has. Its a feel good BS measure that many in this country fall for.

2/23/2007 11:51:37 PM

Quote :

"Bush embraced Reaganomics and took it to a place that Congress never let us go in the 80s. When you starve social programs for 30 years, refuse to raise the minimum wage and encourage the worst aspects of capitalism (allowing things like competition to become buzzwords with no meaning) this is what you get"

wait, clinton starved social programs, too? damn

2/24/2007 1:36:21 AM

Quote :

"but didnt they originally have the opportunity to learn a lot of these things as part of their primary education?"

Probably not. The education system is horrible at educating anyone who wants to do anything outside of going to college.

2/24/2007 11:17:11 AM

Quote :

"raising min wage causes job loss for min wage earners.. it always has. Its a feel good BS measure that many in this country fall for. "

real short term yes. over a year no

2/24/2007 11:26:04 AM

nuts, here is a good article to read.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba499/


revolt, if you can find a senator that made less than 30k the year before he entered office ill give you a dollar. There isnt and you cant. The current system resists a common citizen from making it into higher offices, esp a poor one at that.

2/24/2007 12:03:31 PM

yet some how we don't have the hordes of former minimum wage workers unemployed. and we also don't have a decrease in minimum wage jobs out there either.

2/24/2007 12:14:25 PM

good for you, just read the title of this thread. The economy surely helps. Also, did you read the article? Its not that many people, its mostly young uneducated workers.

2/24/2007 12:31:21 PM

Quote :

"real short term yes. over a year no"

How? What mechanism is compensating for the higher unemployment?

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=461205

2/24/2007 12:44:28 PM

Quote :

"yet some how we don't have the hordes of former minimum wage workers unemployed. and we also don't have a decrease in minimum wage jobs out there either."

I assume you are referring to the recent increase promised by congress. Wouldn't we expect the detrimental effect to occur in time as the wage is increased, I thought it was graduated over a period of two years. I'd assume that the economy has some amount of inertia, any new policy takes some time to have positive or negative effect.

2/25/2007 12:54:47 AM

Quote :

"revolt, if you can find a senator that made less than 30k the year before he entered office ill give you a dollar. There isnt and you cant. The current system resists a common citizen from making it into higher offices, esp a poor one at that."

not rich does not equal poor. what is the point though? i dont think treetwista is trying to argue that congress is full of rich people who do everything they can to destroy the poor. i hope you arent either.

Quote :

" What social program's budget has ever been cut? Spending has increased every year. The minimum wage hurts low-skilled job-seekers. Who exactly is encouraging the worst aspects of capitalism? Who is allowing "competition" to become a buzzword and how is that damaging to anyone?"

Spending has increased. But do you understand the difference between .5% and 3%?

Cuts in a program can occur in a bunch of different ways. For instance welfare reform in the 90s reduced the welfare rolls, but I havent seen anything to fully prove it has done anything more than that (it might, I just havent seen any conclusive studies).

How is a lack of competition damaging? You are seriously gonna argue against everything you believe in? Have you read the news lately? How many times have companies in the past few years been allowed to merge, to the point that most industries in america are oligopolies. Obviously this is a cycle that goes round and round. Companies merge and merge and merge and then they get hit with regulations. entrepreneurs rise up out of the wood work and lots of people make lots of money, while consumers save money, and then the companies start trying to make more money, merge, and the process begins again. We are currently in an era where regulation is frowned upon.
Additionally, as for the worst aspects of capitalism, take a look at the pay for CEOs in relation to the pay of average workers. Take a look at the shrinking middle class.

2/25/2007 12:06:47 PM

MAN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!

2/25/2007 12:10:33 PM

omg you are right. here i am thinking the government serves a purpose. fuck. i was so wrong. how could i have made such a mistake.

2/25/2007 12:22:41 PM

here is your qoute revolt, "But there are also some people in congress who are poor"

And I answer no there isnt.

2/25/2007 12:23:14 PM

jesus you cant be that thick can you?
#1 treetwista already pointed that out and i said i was wrong
#2 WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!?!

2/25/2007 2:54:29 PM