Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2013, 04:56 PM  
Direckshun Direckshun is online now
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $1210528
The problem with conservativism in 2013.

The key problem that I believe conservativism has to face in 2013 and the near future is that it doesn't have an answer to what has become the most critical problem for the 21st century economy: inequality.

There has been a historical tendency over the past 15 years and three Presidents to concentrate more and more wealth with the wealthy, and less and less wealth with everybody else. Inequality is at all time highs on that front, and it gives the middle and lower classes less spending money, slogs down the economy, and ultimately splits the economic pie even greater into the hands of the few.

Liberalism has a whole host of solutions, bordering from the more free market tendencies of the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal movement, to the more socialist suggestions frequently made by the party's left wing. Some of them can be argued as legitimately good ideas (raising the minimum wage, capping the multi-billion dollar tax breaks for huge corporations, any number of investments in college education), some of them are obviously more on the fringe.

Conservativism's answer seems to be singular and ineffective: get "government out of the way," undo the massive structure of government regulation, and the economy will grow. And like a rising tide that lifts all boats (think "trickle down" economics), as the economy grows, so too will the fortunes of the lower and middle classes. Honestly, if conservativism has more of a message than this right now with regards to inequality, I've missed it.

The problem with this message, and conservativism in general right now, is that it seems outdated for 2013. As the economy has grown at times throughout the past fifteen years, the middle class and working poor have seen less and a less of a return on that progress, and the upper class has soared. In other words, the absolute core conservative response to the biggest issue affecting working Americans in 2013 is no longer applicable. It had some bearing, perhaps, in previous decades, but we now reside in an era where this dynamic no longer holds water.

Economists are reportedly attempting to figure out why that is the case. A decrease in education quality seems, to me, to be the most convincing cause, although obviously this is something that deserves a holistic analysis.

But either way, I don't really see convincing analysis that growth is enough anymore. It seems that a reduction in inequality seems now to be just as important.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...06b_print.html

Growth isn’t enough to help the middle class
By Jim Tankersley
Published: February 13

Two kinds of middle-class Americans are struggling today — people who can’t find any work or enough work, and full-timers who can’t seem to get ahead.

Democrats and Republicans prescribe economic growth to help both groups. There was a time that would have been enough. But not today.

In the past three recoveries from recession, U.S. growth has not produced anywhere close to the job and income gains that previous generations of workers enjoyed. The wealthy have continued to do well. But a percentage point of increased growth today simply delivers fewer jobs across the economy and less money in the pockets of middle-class families than an identical point of growth produced in the 40 years after World War II.

That has been painfully apparent in the current recovery. Even as the Obama administration touts the return of economic growth, millions of Americans are not seeing an accompanying revival of better, higher-paying jobs.

The consequences of this breakdown are only now dawning on many economists and have not gained widespread attention among policymakers in Washington. Many lawmakers have yet to even acknowledge the problem. But repairing this link is arguably the most critical policy challenge for anyone who wants to lift the middle class.

Economists are not clear how the economy got to the point where growth drives far less job creation and broadly shared prosperity than it used to. Some theorize that a major factor was globalization, which enabled companies to lay off highly paid workers in the United States during recessions and replace them with lower-paid ones overseas during recoveries.

There is even less agreement on policy prescriptions. Some liberal economists argue that the government should take more-aggressive steps to redistribute wealth. Many economists believe more education will improve the skills of American workers, helping them obtain higher-paying jobs. And still others say the government should seek to reduce the cost of businesses to create new jobs.

The problem is relatively new. From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly, often thanks to aggressive interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. When growth returned, so did job creation, and workers generally shared in the spoils of new economic output.

You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.

At the height of those recoveries, every percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about six-tenths of a percentage point of job growth, when compared with the start of the recovery. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.

The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H.W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up, even when the economy was growing. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent, or about two-thirds the normal rate.

The next two recoveries were even worse. Three and a half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck at less than 0.2 percent. The recovery under President Obama is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.

Middle-class income growth looks even worse for those recoveries. From 1992 to 1994, and again from 2002 to 2004, real median household incomes fell — even though the economy grew more than 6 percent, after adjustments for inflation, in both cases. From 2009 to 2011 the economy grew more than 4 percent, but real median incomes grew by 0.5 percent.

In contrast, from 1982 to 1984, the economy grew by nearly 11 percent and real median incomes grew by 5 percent.

Today, nearly four years after the Great Recession, 12 million Americans are actively looking for work but can’t find a job; 11 million others are stuck working part time when they would like to be full time, or they would like to work but are too discouraged to job-hunt. Meanwhile, workers’ median wages were lower at the end of 2012, after adjustments for inflation, than they were at the end of 2003. Real household income was lower in 2011 than it was in 1989.

Obama alluded to the breakdown between growth and middle-class wages and jobs in his State of the Union address. “Every day,” he said, “we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?”

But outside of some targeted help for manufacturing jobs and some new investments in skills training, the proposals Obama offered focused comparatively little on repairing the relationship between growth and jobs, or growth and income. Obama’s boldest plans included increasing the minimum wage and guaranteeing every child a preschool education. Both aim largely at boosting poorer Americans and helping their children gain a better shot at landing the higher-paying jobs.

The Republican response to Obama’s speech did not appear to nod to the new reality at all. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) said that “economic growth is the best way to help the middle class” and offered few job-creation proposals that appeared materially different from what Republican politicians have pushed since the 1980s.

Economists are still trying to sort out what broke the historical links between growth and jobs/incomes.

Economists are still trying to sort out what broke the historical links between growth and jobs/incomes.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York economists Erica Groshen and Simon Potter concluded in a 2003 paper that the recoveries from the 1990 and 2001 recessions were largely “jobless” because employers had fundamentally changed how they responded to recessions. In the past, firms laid off workers during downturns but called them back when the economy picked up again. Now, they are using recessions as a trigger to lay off less-productive workers, never to hire them back.

Economists at the liberal Economic Policy Institute trace the problem to a series of policy choices that, they say, have eroded workers’ ability to secure rising incomes. Those choices include industry deregulation and the opening of global markets on unfavorable terms for U.S. workers.

In the latest edition of their book “The State of Working America,” EPI economists argue that an “increasingly well-paid financial sector and policies regarding executive compensation fueled wage growth at the top and the rise of the top 1 percent’s incomes” at the expense of average workers.

Robert Shapiro, an economist who advised Bill Clinton on the campaign trail and in the White House, traces the change to increased global competition.

“It makes it hard for firms to pass along their cost increases — for health care, energy and so on — in higher prices,” he said. “So instead they cut other costs, starting with jobs and wages.”

Shapiro said the best way to restart job creation is to help businesses cut the costs of hiring, including by reducing the employer side of the payroll tax and pushing more aggressive efforts to hold down health-care cost increases.

Obama seems to have embraced an approach pushed by Harvard University economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz: helping more Americans graduate from college and go on to high-skilled, higher-paying jobs. It’s a longer-term bet. But as senior administration officials like to say, the problem didn’t start overnight, and it’s not likely to be solved overnight, either.

Last edited by Direckshun; 02-18-2013 at 05:09 PM..
Posts: 43,905
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 09:49 PM   #196
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473555
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native View Post
The World Bank classifies Mexico as an Upper Middle Income country. They are not a 3rd world country. They have financial markets and infrastructure.

Border cities do not make an entire country a 3rd world country.

Aside from US conservatives, I'd like to see you find someone credible to support your assertion that Mexico is a 3rd world country.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third%20world
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 09:51 PM   #197
listopencil listopencil is online now
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1131199
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native View Post
....of course they pay more, that have tremendously more. That doesn't change the fact that the magnitude of benefits that the rich receive is larger than those on the other end of the scale.
That sounds a lot like from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. You are valuing the benefits that they receive based solely on the amount of material wealth that is being protected.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,055
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:46 PM   #198
KC native KC native is offline
a toda madre o un desmadre
 
KC native's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Casino cash: $1072140
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
And your point is? Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala are examples of 3rd world countries. Mexico is not a 3rd world country.

A dictionary definition which doesn't even specifically mention Mexico is not a credible source to deem Mexico a 3rd world country.

Now, I can predict what your next response is going to be, so I'm just going to head it off.
From your definition
Quote:
Political designation originally used (1963) to describe those states not part of the first world—the capitalist, economically developed states led by the U.S.—or the second world—the communist states led by the Soviet Union. The third world principally consists of the developing world, former colonies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. With the end of the Cold War and the increased economic competitiveness of some developing countries, the term has lost its analytic clarity.
Your definition doesn't say what you think it does.
__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowanian View Post
I'm just a little pussy from Iowa
Posts: 17,175
KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:53 PM   #199
KC native KC native is offline
a toda madre o un desmadre
 
KC native's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Casino cash: $1072140
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
That sounds a lot like from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. You are valuing the benefits that they receive based solely on the amount of material wealth that is being protected.
Um, not even close. Examining who benefits more is not equivalent to a plank of the communist party. As has been mentioned several times around here, Adam Smith the father of modern capitalist theory advocated a progressive tax schedule. Expecting those who can afford to pay more to pay more is no where close to socialism/communism.

Aside from that, where do you get that I'm valuing the benefits solely on the basis of material wealth being protected? What about material wealth being generated (of which, most of it accrues to the wealthy)? What about the factors that society provides so the wealthy can continue to generate and protect material wealth?
__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowanian View Post
I'm just a little pussy from Iowa
Posts: 17,175
KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:21 PM   #200
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473555
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native View Post
And your point is? Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala are examples of 3rd world countries. Mexico is not a 3rd world country.

A dictionary definition which doesn't even specifically mention Mexico is not a credible source to deem Mexico a 3rd world country.

Now, I can predict what your next response is going to be, so I'm just going to head it off.
From your definition


Your definition doesn't say what you think it does.
No, it says exactly what I think it says. It's an archaic concept, but it clearly includes Mexico under it's traditional meaning.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:35 PM   #201
KC native KC native is offline
a toda madre o un desmadre
 
KC native's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Casino cash: $1072140
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
No, it says exactly what I think it says. It's an archaic concept, but it clearly includes Mexico under it's traditional meaning.
Patty, you are embarrassing yourself. This is BEP level cognitive dissonance.
__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowanian View Post
I'm just a little pussy from Iowa
Posts: 17,175
KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.KC native wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:16 AM   #202
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473555
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native View Post
Patty, you are embarrassing yourself. This is BEP level cognitive dissonance.
Whatever. Tell your third world relatives hi for me.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 01:20 AM   #203
petegz28 petegz28 is online now
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $264926
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native View Post
Truth pete? Just ignore that little pesky factor income.

It was a terrible analogy. This analogy is just as bad.
You just don't like facing the facts. You mention income then trash examples that are factored on income. The "truth" is both scenarios factored income yet you want to pretend otherwise
__________________
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."

Stewie Griffin
Posts: 65,528
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:06 AM   #204
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $34271
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Yes, I agree with that. The poverty rate declined after Reagan cut top marginal tax rates. It's pretty easy to see in the graph in post 77.
So you do fail at reading. That actually explains a lot. That sentence did not say poverty declined. It is saying that poverty was higher at the end of Reagan term than in 1979. The exact opposite of what you are saying.
Posts: 3,762
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:11 AM   #205
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
So you do fail at reading. That actually explains a lot. That sentence did not say poverty declined. It is saying that poverty was higher at the end of Reagan term than in 1979. The exact opposite of what you are saying.
1979 is irrelevant. Jimmy Carter still had two years to impoverish people with failed democrat leadership. Try to use your head. Pick a relevant start date and you'll see the decline in the poverty rate that I'm talking about.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:15 AM   #206
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $34271
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 View Post
I have always used a certain analogy when trying to explain who benefits more in such scenarios....

It's a pretty simple one;

Imagine you had to pay $2 for the $1 menu hamburger simply because you made more money than the guy in front of you and for no other reason?

You get the same hamburger, the same service, only you are paying twice as much.
That analogy doesn't even make sense. The rich don't get the same hamburger or the same service, nor does the hamburger help the rich make more money (which infrastructure does).

You conservatives like household analogies, I'll give you one:

Let's say I live with my three other roommates. The house provides all three of us with the basics needed - shelter, utilities, that kinda thing- basics we all benefit from.

Now, one roommate gets a giant bedroom, own kitchen, own bathroom, has the only garage parking spot and insists he gets his own Direct TV box, he also has a personal heater he runs non stop.

Now they all benefit from having a house, but one has it better.

Which is more fair to the other two roommates. A flat payment for rent and utilities and everything else divided equally between the three, or something proportional to what the roommates get out of the house?
Posts: 3,762
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:18 AM   #207
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $34271
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
1979 is irrelevant. Jimmy Carter still had two years to impoverish people with failed democrat leadership. Try to use your head. Pick a relevant start date and you'll see the decline in the poverty rate that I'm talking about.
What are you even talking about? Poverty was higher in 1988 than in 1979. That is what the facts say. I don't care about Jimmy Carter. You can try to spin it, but that is what the facts say. I already posted facts that show poverty increased in 81, 82, and 83. It never dipped below levels in 1979. Therefore your poverty decreased is completely wrong.

/I know you won't admit you are wrong. That is something grownups do, not immature conservatives.
Posts: 3,762
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:22 AM   #208
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $34271
Here is something else for you to ignore.

http://articles.latimes. com/1992-08-12/news/mn-5406_1_child-poverty

"Child Poverty Grew in 1980s, Study Finds : Families: Over one-fourth of children living in major cities were classified as poor in 1989, group reports. Santa Ana leads Orange County with a 22% rate." Aug 12, 1992

WASHINGTON — The pervasiveness of poverty among American children grew during the past decade (1980's), resulting in inadequate medical attention and schooling for the nation's underprivileged youth, a child advocacy group said Tuesday.

...

The study, which is based on Census Bureau figures, examines the percentage of children living in households with income below the government's official poverty line. At the time of the study, the threshold was $13,000 for a family of four. Recent Census figures show that 31 million Americans, or 12% of the overall population, live below the poverty line.

The Washington-based advocacy group found that 26% of the children it studied were living in poverty in 1989. The study also shows that childhood poverty is not concentrated within the nation's biggest urban areas, but extends into many smaller cities and suburbs as well.

...

Jim Weill, who helped prepare the CDF report, said that while the nation as a whole grew wealthier during the 1980s, the disparity between rich and poor grew.
Posts: 3,762
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:54 AM   #209
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
That analogy doesn't even make sense. The rich don't get the same hamburger or the same service, nor does the hamburger help the rich make more money (which infrastructure does).

You conservatives like household analogies, I'll give you one:

Let's say I live with my three other roommates. The house provides all three of us with the basics needed - shelter, utilities, that kinda thing- basics we all benefit from.

Now, one roommate gets a giant bedroom, own kitchen, own bathroom, has the only garage parking spot and insists he gets his own Direct TV box, he also has a personal heater he runs non stop.

Now they all benefit from having a house, but one has it better.

Which is more fair to the other two roommates. A flat payment for rent and utilities and everything else divided equally between the three, or something proportional to what the roommates get out of the house?
Why does the one roommate get all those things and what do the other two roommates get?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:04 AM   #210
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
What are you even talking about? Poverty was higher in 1988 than in 1979. That is what the facts say. I don't care about Jimmy Carter. You can try to spin it, but that is what the facts say. I already posted facts that show poverty increased in 81, 82, and 83. It never dipped below levels in 1979. Therefore your poverty decreased is completely wrong.

/I know you won't admit you are wrong. That is something grownups do, not immature conservatives.
You can't leave 1979 even though it's irrelevant to the effects of a tax cut that took place years later. You must care about Jimmy Carter because you keep lumping his failed presidency in with the poverty-reducing Reagan era.

Poverty dropped over the period beginning in 1982 through 1989. This period immediately follows Reagan's first rate decrease and carries through his second. Changing the dates to pick up the end of Carter's failed presidency doesn't implicate Reagan's tax rate cuts that hadn't even happened yet. I don't think you're being dishonest. I think you just don't really understand this stuff.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.