14% of Americans are "poor"... but how "poor" is that?

[Little-Acorn]

The Census Bureau reported today that 14.3% of Americans are "poor". This brings up visions of people hungry, shivering, homeless, wearing tattered clothes, suffering from afflictions without medical care, etc.

But how true is that vision?

An interesting report on that question, came out three years ago.

------------------------------------

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

How Poor Are America's Poor?
Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Published on August 27, 2007 by Robert Rector

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]

To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers-to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description.

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

* As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Pagan]

The Census Bureau reported today that 14.3% of Americans are "poor". This brings up visions of people hungry, shivering, homeless, wearing tattered clothes, suffering from afflictions without medical care, etc.

But how true is that vision?

An interesting report on that question, came out three years ago.

------------------------------------

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

How Poor Are America's Poor?
Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Published on August 27, 2007 by Robert Rector

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]

To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers-to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description.

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

* As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

People need to get out and travel a bit, like go to a developing country.

This isn't poverty

http://cm1.theinsider.com/thumbnail/600/400/cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/552/75/Yoo-hoo2.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/846540903_41aea2a165.jpg?v=0

This "IS" Poverty

http://garydillon.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/starvation3.jpghttp://www.myseveralworlds.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kibera_5_600.jpg

Americans don't have fucking clue

[darin]

People are Poor by choice.

[Trigg]

our poor would be considered middle class in many countries.

I've seen poverty in Jamaica and the Dominican, most people here have no idea what actual poverty looks like.

[Noir]

Yeah, I saw this pic the other day, puts allot of stuff in perspective.

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/076/6/0/605b7d3c66c2dc9470fd939b2011ac0e.png

[namvet]

43.6M; working-age poor at highest level since 1960s

congrats democraps

[actsnoblemartin]

People are Poor by choice.

i'd agree with you that most people are, but what about those with crippling disabilities?

I am poor, but I never chose to have the issues I had, granted I have made a lot of progress against them, but nobody is freaking hiring, just as ive overcome my mental illness enough to hold a job

I have two addictions holding me back

just a thought

[red states rule]

It is now officially Fall, and Joe Biden's Summer of Recovery has ended. How was that Summer of Recovery for you?

More importantly, how was that Summer of Recovery for the people who have lost their job, their home, and gone bankrupt?

Yes, Obamanomics has accomplished what many of us said it would acomplish

[Agnapostate]

Hmmm. Those of us familiar with basic economics are familiar with the difference between absolute and basic poverty, of course. It's just that the premise of this thread seems to be the sort of flawed logic that would say, "They call Buchenwald bad, but look at Auschwitz!" What's remarkable is that the exact pattern that this thread followed and that discussions on the subject in rightist echo chamber will always follow was predicted in this post (http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/132060-who-thinks-america-rich-pay-too-much-18.html#post2712177) by a user named Reiver. His prescient statement was that, "The typical 'head in the sand' merchant will employ a two fold method to ignore this evidence," and I've seen it play out perfectly here.

This is the two-fold approach that he describes: "First, they will mutter that relative poverty is a Marxist concept and it really only has a practical application to the developing world. For example, folk will crow about how the so-called poor have a car, a computer, an annual holiday and an air conditioning unit. Poverty, according to this view, should be defined as ‘insufficient funds to eat’. A distinction between poverty and a goody-2-shoes general whine about income inequality should be made." That was accomplished in the first response to this thread, and was actually characteristic of the OP.


People need to get out and travel a bit, like go to a developing country.

Of course, the issue is not that the U.S. is poor in comparison to developing countries, which would be absurd, considering the wealth of the country, but that the U.S. is poor in comparison with other countries of similar station. This conclusion is supported by empirical research (and I thank Reiver for introducing me to the literature), such as Smeeding's Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aea/jep/2006/00000020/00000001/art00004), which notes that, "in most rich countries, the relative child poverty rate is 10 percent or less; in the U.S., it is 21.9 percent. The only country that can compete is the UK, which has a higher rate but has made a substantial push toward reducing child poverty."

Then, the second point made by Reiver: "Second, they will splutter that the American Dream operates whereby class is irrelevant and the hard worker will succeed. Both arguments therefore stress the importance of referring to mobility, rather than a static account of poverty/income inequality." That was accomplished in the second response to this thread:


People are Poor by choice.

When the empirical literature on social mobility is examined, peer-reviewed studies in scholarly journals reveal that U.S. and Anglo-Saxon capitalism more generally constrain mobility more than the Rhine capitalism of much of continental Europe and the social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia and the Netherlands in particular. I'll refer to several sources on this matter, including some mentioned by Reiver and some others in the literature:

1. Solon's Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117312): "Social scientists and policy analysts have long expressed concern about the extent of intergenerational income mobility in the United States, but remarkably little empirical evidence is available. The few existing estimates of the intergenerational correlation in income have been biased downward by measurement error, unrepresentative samples, or both. New estimates based on intergenerational data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics imply that the intergenerational correlation in long-run income is at least 0.4, indicating dramatically less mobility than suggested by earlier research."

2. Zimmerman's Regression toward Mediocrity in Economic Stature (http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v82y1992i3p409-29.html): "This paper provides estimates of the correlation in lifetime earnings between fathers and sons. Intergenerational data from the National Longitudinal Survey are used. Earlier studies, conducted for the United States, report elasticities of children's earnings with respect to parent's earnings of 0.2 or less, suggesting extensive intergenerational mobility. These estimates, however, are biased.downward by error-contaminated measures of lifetime economic status. Estimates presented in this paper correct for the problem of measurement error and find the intergenerational correlation in income to be on the order of 0.4. This suggests considerably less intergenerational mobility than previously believed."

3. Björklund and Jäntti's Intergenerational Income Mobility in Sweden Compared to the United States (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2951338): "We have presented a new technique for estimating intergenerational income correlations on independent samples of fathers and sons, if data on actual father-son pairs are unavailable. We used this technique to generate comparable estimates from the United States and Sweden. Our findings contradict the notion that the United States has higher intergenerational mobility."

4. Gangl's Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States (http://wox.sagepub.com/content/32/2/140.abstract): "In most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States."

5. Corak's Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility (http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf): "In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada."

6. Blanden et al.'s Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.5218&rep=rep1&type=pdf): "International comparisons indicate that intergenerational mobility in Britain is of the same order of magnitude as in the US, but that these countries are substantially less mobile than Canada and the Nordic countries...the extent of intergenerational mobility for sons is lowest in the UK and US, is at intermediate levels for West Germany and is highest for the Scandinavian countries."

This can be summarized visually:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/IncomeDecileProbability.jpg

Sizable accumulations of financial capital are usually derived from direct inheritances, not a lifetime of careful toiling and saving, as Glenn Beck might have you believe. Perhaps I could interest you with reference to Summers and Kotlikoff's The role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833031), the abstract of which notes, "This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or 'hump' savings. A major difference between this study and previous investigations of this issue is the use of more accurate longitudinal age-earnings and age-consumption profiles. These profiles are simply too flat to generate substantial life-cycle savings. This paper suggests the importance of and need for substantially greater research and data collection on intergenerational transfers. Life-cycle models of savings that emphasize savings for retirement as the dominant form of capital accumulation should give way to models that illuminate the determinants of intergenerational transfers."

All forms of capitalism will involve some degree of poverty and social immobility, of course, but the U.S. is a particularly unique offender, and the UK decidedly worse than continental Europe. It certainly shatters the myth of the "American dream."

[Pagan]

>> SQUAWK <<





http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3VfrwcQo2Q0/SmgmKFW8-bI/AAAAAAAAANQ/LtgawFnBM5g/s400/www.ritemail.blogspot.com_11.jpg

[Agnapostate]

[stupidity]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/copgtfo.jpg

[Pagan]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/copgtfo.jpg

Tell us again how anarchy is exclusively a socialist philosophy? http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/rofl.gifhttp://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/rasta.gif

http://pix.rejecttheherd.net/d/6240-1/insanity-world.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Tell us again how anarchy is exclusively a socialist philosophy?

Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

[Pagan]

Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:



Yep, it sure is, isn't it Slick

I've never and I mean NEVER have run across anyone so fucking ignorant in my life .......


Anarchism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism)

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

First Known Use of ANARCHISM
1642

Socialism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837

http://www.birdsupplies.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/screamingparrot.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Yep, it sure is, isn't it Slick

I've never and I mean NEVER have run across anyone so fucking ignorant in my life .......


Anarchism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism)

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

First Known Use of ANARCHISM
1642

Socialism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837

http://www.birdsupplies.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/screamingparrot.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Every single one of your fucking skull bones must be piercing your brain. Oooh, the dictionary! Well, don't that fucking beat all! Our fucking oracle of wisdom has ascended from the heights of heaven to perform some magic for us mere mortals. Oh...oh wait...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/anarchism


The theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism


A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism


Any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products

Well, I'll be goddamned! The Almighty Dictionary has failed us. The fucking sky is falling! Shit, I guess we'll have to drop the fucking topic. Or, or, as might occur to any motherfucker with an ounce of sense as opposed to a fucking crack baby with cranial trauma such as yourself, we might actually try some complicated shit like detailed explanations of our respective claims. What is your "anarchism"? Who are its thinkers and advocates? Where has it been practiced? Where is your refutation of all of my claims, as opposed to moronic, retarded contradiction? Get your fucking shit together, "slick." :slap:

[Pagan]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Every single one of your fucking skull bones must be piercing your brain. Oooh, the dictionary! Well, don't that fucking beat all! Our fucking oracle of wisdom has ascended from the heights of heaven to perform some magic for us mere mortals. Oh...oh wait...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/anarchism



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism



http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism



Well, I'll be goddamned! The Almighty Dictionary has failed us. The fucking sky is falling! Shit, I guess we'll have to drop the fucking topic. Or, or, as might occur to any motherfucker with an ounce of sense as opposed to a fucking crack baby with cranial trauma such as yourself, we might actually try some complicated shit like detailed explanations of our respective claims. What is your "anarchism"? Who are its thinkers and advocates? Where has it been practiced? Where is your refutation of all of my claims, as opposed to moronic, retarded contradiction? Get your fucking shit together, "slick." :slap:

Yep, sure is numbnutts -

First Known Use of ANARCHISM
1642

First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837

Yep, full Government ownership and administration sure is the same thing as all forms of government authority is unnecessary.

Your ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds -

http://bp0.blogger.com/_5RZe2q5rgBk/R6DRZD0qkLI/AAAAAAAAAZw/dl8jNZiQb_s/s400/parrot.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Yep, sure is numbnutts -

First Known Use of ANARCHISM
1642

First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837

Yep, full Government ownership and administration sure is the same thing as all forms of government authority is unnecessary.

Your ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds -

http://bp0.blogger.com/_5RZe2q5rgBk/R6DRZD0qkLI/AAAAAAAAAZw/dl8jNZiQb_s/s400/parrot.jpg

Idiot: The first use of the term 'anarchist' as a political self-description was in 1840 by the French market socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=5723842


But, like such titles as Christian and Quaker, "anarchist" was in the end proudly adopted by one of those against whom it had been used in condemnation. In 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, that stormy, argumentative individualist who prided himself on being a man of paradox and a provoker of contradiction, published the work that established him as a pioneer libertarian thinker. It was What Is Property?, in which he gave his own question the celebrated answer: "Property is theft." In the same book he became the first man willingly to claim the title of anarchist.

Undoubtedly Proudhon did this partly in defiance, and partly in order to exploit the word's paradoxical qualities. He had recognized the ambiguity of the Greek anarchos, and had gone back to it for that very reason -- to emphasize that the criticism of authority on which he was about to embark need not necessarily imply an advocacy of disorder. The passages in which he introduces "anarchist" and "anarchy" are historically important enough to merit quotation, since they not merely show these words being used for the first time in a socially positive sense, but also contain in germ the justification by natural law which anarchists have in general applied to their arguments for a nonauthoritarian society.

'What is to be the form of government in the future? [he asks]. I hear some of my readers reply: "Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." A republican! Yes, but that word specifies nothing.
Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government, may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans. "Well, you are a
democrat." No.... "Then what are you? " I am an anarchist!'

Proudhon goes on to suggest that the real laws by which society functions have nothing to do with authority; they are not imposed from above, but stem from the nature of society itself. He sees the free emergence of such laws as the goal of social endeavor.

So, to recap: Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

[red states rule]

Lets give credit where credit is due. Obama needs to be honored for his economic policies

So when Americans use their food stamps they will know who to thank

http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Obama-Food-Stamp-1.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Just when I think there's no higher level of stupid than Chafin', dead states comes in with his eyes on the prize.

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/168161.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Jimbo must be desperate as fuck if he's making you a mod. What the fuck are you doing, compiling a bootleg picture book since you can't read words like the rest of us, shit for brains? :lol:

[Nukeman]

Hmmm. Those of us familiar with basic economics are familiar with the difference between absolute and basic poverty, of course. It's just that the premise of this thread seems to be the sort of flawed logic that would say, "They call Buchenwald bad, but look at Auschwitz!" What's remarkable is that the exact pattern that this thread followed and that discussions on the subject in rightist echo chamber will always follow was predicted in this post (http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/132060-who-thinks-america-rich-pay-too-much-18.html#post2712177) by a user named Reiver. His prescient statement was that, "The typical 'head in the sand' merchant will employ a two fold method to ignore this evidence," and I've seen it play out perfectly here.

This is the two-fold approach that he describes: "First, they will mutter that relative poverty is a Marxist concept and it really only has a practical application to the developing world. For example, folk will crow about how the so-called poor have a car, a computer, an annual holiday and an air conditioning unit. Poverty, according to this view, should be defined as ‘insufficient funds to eat’. A distinction between poverty and a goody-2-shoes general whine about income inequality should be made." That was accomplished in the first response to this thread, and was actually characteristic of the OP.



Of course, the issue is not that the U.S. is poor in comparison to developing countries, which would be absurd, considering the wealth of the country, but that the U.S. is poor in comparison with other countries of similar station. This conclusion is supported by empirical research (and I thank Reiver for introducing me to the literature), such as Smeeding's Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aea/jep/2006/00000020/00000001/art00004), which notes that, "in most rich countries, the relative child poverty rate is 10 percent or less; in the U.S., it is 21.9 percent. The only country that can compete is the UK, which has a higher rate but has made a substantial push toward reducing child poverty."

Then, the second point made by Reiver: "Second, they will splutter that the American Dream operates whereby class is irrelevant and the hard worker will succeed. Both arguments therefore stress the importance of referring to mobility, rather than a static account of poverty/income inequality." That was accomplished in the second response to this thread:





AS much as it pains me to say it Agna is right on this!!! WE as a nation can not compare OUR poor to the poor of a 3rd world country (yet). Everything is relative and the fact remains that the poor in the US are far removed from the rich and upper middle class. They do not have the same opportunities or I should say MOTIVATION..

In some instances the poor do have more opportunity to succeed. Look at the help they are afforded for college, where solid middle class does not receive anything. The ones that would actually take advantage of the programs were they offered are not allowed to participate..

I think the point DMP was making with the "poor by choice" comment is that there are MANY programs to help the poor get ahead and do better, unfortunately you need the motivation as well.

[Pagan]

Idiot: The first use of the term 'anarchist' as a political self-description was in 1840 by the French market socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=5723842



So, to recap: Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:




So the concept of Anarchism never existed before Pierre eh? Zhuangzi never wrote of it eh? You know like "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]"

So tell me you ignorant fuck again how the theory that "all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary" and "governmental ownership" are the same?

[Agnapostate]

AS much as it pains me to say it Agna is right on this!!! WE as a nation can not compare OUR poor to the poor of a 3rd world country (yet). Everything is relative and the fact remains that the poor in the US are far removed from the rich and upper middle class. They do not have the same opportunities or I should say MOTIVATION..

In some instances the poor do have more opportunity to succeed. Look at the help they are afforded for college, where solid middle class does not receive anything. The ones that would actually take advantage of the programs were they offered are not allowed to participate..

I think the point DMP was making with the "poor by choice" comment is that there are MANY programs to help the poor get ahead and do better, unfortunately you need the motivation as well.

Then the implication would have to be a nationalistic one that people in the U.S. are uniquely lazy and apathetic compared to people in countries with higher levels of social welfare. How will that be maintained?


So the concept of Anarchism never existed before Pierre eh? Zhuangzi never wrote of it eh? You know like "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]"

So tell me you ignorant fuck again how the theory that "all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary" and "governmental ownership" are the same?

Oh, god, you dumb motherfucker...you're not basing your moronic bullshit on the pseudo-anarchist Murray Rothbard, are you? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Pagan]

Oh, god, you dumb motherfucker...you're not basing your moronic bullshit on the pseudo-anarchist Murray Rothbard, are you? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nope, I'm capable of original thought and can use my brain and do some of basic research. Unlike Parrots like yourself.

So tell us again how no government and full government control is the same thing you ignorant fuck. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Come on Slick, let's see some more -----------------------------

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/17/parrot.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Nope, I'm capable of original thought and can use my brain and do some of basic research. Unlike Parrots like yourself.

Uh oh! Looks like fuckhead is backsliding again. Well, I'm sure as hell not going to hold your broken head and wipe your snotty face when you bawl stupid shit like this, so...:slap:

Option A: Reply to the facts provided in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=440481&highlight=Bakunin#post440481), this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441501&highlight=Bakunin#post441501), and this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441586&highlight=Bakunin#post441586). Read this section of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca14). Then provide your own definition of the economic nature of anarchism. In this way, you can stop acting like an imbecilic crackhead with autism.

Option B: Or continue to moronically repeat the same stupid idiotic shit over and over again. :slap:

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

[red states rule]

Despite what the left and liberal media say - America has the richest poor in the world

According to the US Census Bureau:




snip
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

[Agnapostate]

Despite what the left and liberal media say - America has the richest poor in the world

Are you a broken spambot? Your repetitive copy and paste of commentary from a partisan think tank rather than from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal doesn't interest me. Try actually replying to my first post in this thread.

[red states rule]

Are you a broken spambot? Your repetitive copy and paste of commentary from a partisan think tank rather than from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal doesn't interest me. Try actually replying to my first post in this thread.

The numbers are from the US Census Bureau

And I do not care if you are interested or not. If you are not interested do not reply

Easy isn't it?

[Sweetchuck]

There's a term that a buddy of mine who owns and leases apartment buildings regarding the "poor".

Low cash, high assets.

[red states rule]

There's a term that a buddy of mine who owns and leases apartment buildings regarding the "poor".

Low cash, high assets.

Or Champagne Tastes On a Beer Budget

[Indy]

Are you a broken spambot? Your repetitive copy and paste of commentary from a partisan think tank rather than from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal doesn't interest me. Try actually replying to my first post in this thread.

Peer reviewed? By whom, partisan scholars? Is this peer review anything like the criteria set by the IPCC ? Where if your opinion doesn't jive you get excluded mocked and ostracized. Libertarian communist? Now there is a contradiction in terms. So there is no government, and everyone shares equally.:laugh:You should establish your own country, but you can't be a leader, especialy with your mouth, that would be a form of government. Who decides who does what? You need schools and an infrastructure, some form of medical care will be needed. Or was your plan to reshape America? I've been poor myself once, by American standards anyway. I managed to climb out of that hole. But according to people like you , I shouldn't pass any of that on to my kids because according to you, and Obama, that's a bad thing. I shouldn't be able to keep my profits for anything I took the risk of losing everything when I invested.Instead I should hand it out equally to people who stay home, watch TV and drink all day.Naw, I think I'll stay home all day.

[red states rule]

and look how much as been spent trying to end poverty in the US. Note the date of the article so the cost is much higher then in the article




$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?
by Jenifer Zeigler


Jenifer Zeigler is a welfare policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on September 3, 2004

This article appeared on Foxnews.com on September 1, 2004

At the Republican National Convention this week, there was a lot of talk about money. Pay raises for firefighters. Money for Swift Boat ads. Money to rebuild Iraq, and so on. One thing the pundits and presidential candidates didn't say much about, however, is how much money has been spent fighting the "war on poverty"--$9 trillion and counting. Yes, $9 trillion.

Yet, as the Census Bureau just reported, poverty in America is up. So what do the candidates propose we do?

Well, one candidate believes the solution is to spend more money on social programs, while the other believes the solution is to spend more money on ... social programs. Since 2000, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the traditional welfare program) spending has increased 6 percent. What did we get for that money? A higher poverty rate. Obviously a stagnant economy and poor job market are responsible for the increase in those living below the poverty line. However, spending more money on social programs is not raising them back out of poverty.

The best way to reduce the poverty rate is to convince people to avoid poverty in the first place by finishing school, delaying parenthood, and getting a job (any job). High school dropouts are roughly three times more likely to end up in poverty than are those who complete at least a high school education. A common reason why teens drop out of high school is out-of-wedlock births. Teenage pregnancy initiates a single mother into a life of dependency that is difficult to overcome, especially if she goes on to have additional children. Over half of welfare money is spent on families that began with a teen birth.

Getting a job as a solution to poverty may seem like common sense. Granted, not every job pays a wage that will catapult a family into the middle class. However, every job provides job experience, and that leads to a better job. Maybe today's minimum-wage, service industry employee is not on a track for management. But he is showing that he is a reliable worker who can learn and perform duties, something a future employer will value.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807

[Agnapostate]

Peer reviewed? By whom, partisan scholars?

Typically by several scholars of varying persuasions, which results in a spread of opinions within mainstream journals.


Is this peer review anything like the criteria set by the IPCC ? Where if your opinion doesn't jive you get excluded mocked and ostracized.

Allegations of bias are typically the recourse of persons unable to attempt legitimate methodological criticism of given research. Coming from a heterodox perspective myself, it's something I could choose to do to dismiss all mainstream research, but instead, I try to judge work on its merits. Consider doing that sometime.


Libertarian communist? Now there is a contradiction in terms. So there is no government, and everyone shares equally.:laugh:

Not quite. Libertarianism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology, and the term "libertarian" was first used in a self-descriptive political sense by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque in 1857. The U.S.-based Libertarian Party did not exist until 1971, which means that anarchists used the word for a century before its misappropriation by rightists in the U.S.


You should establish your own country, but you can't be a leader, especialy with your mouth, that would be a form of government. Who decides who does what? You need schools and an infrastructure, some form of medical care will be needed. Or was your plan to reshape America? I've been poor myself once, by American standards anyway. I managed to climb out of that hole. But according to people like you , I shouldn't pass any of that on to my kids because according to you, and Obama, that's a bad thing. I shouldn't be able to keep my profits for anything I took the risk of losing everything when I invested.Instead I should hand it out equally to people who stay home, watch TV and drink all day.Naw, I think I'll stay home all day.

There's nothing intelligent or informative here; these are just stupid cliches. Try replying to my first post in this thread instead, which has not been refuted by anyone, because the collective IQ of this forum's membership skims the level of mental retardation.

[Pagan]

Typically by several scholars of varying persuasions, which results in a spread of opinions within mainstream journals.



Allegations of bias are typically the recourse of persons unable to attempt legitimate methodological criticism of given research. Coming from a heterodox perspective myself, it's something I could choose to do to dismiss all mainstream research, but instead, I try to judge work on its merits. Consider doing that sometime.



Not quite. Libertarianism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology, and the term "libertarian" was first used in a self-descriptive political sense by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque in 1857. The U.S.-based Libertarian Party did not exist until 1971, which means that anarchists used the word for a century before its misappropriation by rightists in the U.S.



There's nothing intelligent or informative here; these are just stupid cliches. Try replying to my first post in this thread instead, which has not been refuted by anyone, because the collective IQ of this forum's membership skims the level of mental retardation.


SQUAWK

http://www.splicetoday.com/vault/posts/0000/2953/chickenlady_large.jpg?1234151790

[Agnapostate]

[idiocy]

http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/files/2008/11/down.jpg

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0924cd20100923071611.jpg