Obama on the debt limit

[Roy Pitchford]

You do realize that the poverty line has not adjusted properly for inflation since it was established? That it is actually lower than it should be? That some people who are above it should technically be considered poor?

Where do you draw the line then?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty

Chart 1 shows the percentage of all U.S. households that owned or had available various household amenities and conveniences in 2005. For example, it shows that 84 percent of all U.S. households had air conditioning, 79 percent had cable or satellite television, and 68 percent had a personal computer.

Chart 2 shows the same information for 2005 for poor U.S. households (those with cash incomes below the official poverty thresholds). While poor households were slightly less likely to have conveniences than the general population, most poor households had a wide range of amenities. As Chart 2 shows, 78 percent of poor households had air conditioning, 64 percent had cable or satellite TV, and 38 percent had a personal computer.

[Thealexa Becker]

Once again, do you think it is a good thing for .1% of the country to control 10% of the economy? Is that what you mean is a good thing by there being more rich? And how is that any different than there being a few politicians controlling the debt ceiling?

Yes, it is a good thing that .1% of the country controls 10% of the "economy". They obviously understand how to make money and also help to create jobs.

Wow.

That's really funny.

Nice jargon usage right there.

You know the rich are actually not spending as much or creating as many jobs right? It's really the smaller entreprenuers who are NOT in that top .1% that create jobs.

I think I liked the statistics better when 68% of the wealth was in the hands of the middle and upper middle class like the small business owners, you know, the ones creating most of the jobs right now.

Why do you like it so much in the hands of the top .1%? I mean, are you able to answer that without jargon like "job creation"? What benefit does it give you personally? Or better yet, tell me why I should agree with you? What benefit does it give me?

[Thealexa Becker]

Roy, you crack me up. You really do.

Here is the thing. We live in the modern world. Standards of living have changed. Not having a refrigerator is sad. Not having a stove is equally sad.

These applicances have become standard, whether you think they are frivolous or not. In fact, low quality ones are quite easy to come by. But really, a stove and a refrigerator are hardly amenities.

Here is a better question to pose to you:

Why do you think it is bad that the poor have all these items? Would you prefer they not have access to the internet and information? Or to refrigerated food? Is that your idea of what the poor in America should have/not have? What does a REAL poor person look like to Roy Pitchford?

I mean, just because they have some of these things, which I think most rational people would agree at least some of these items are essential to modern life, DOES NOT mean they aren't poor or don't need help.

1 in 4 children are hungry every night. 1 in 6 people are hungry. Is that not something that bothers you?

If it doesn't, well, I guess you can keep on spewing statistics about how they are lying about being poor or how they don't pay taxes so they are freeloading, but really, you are just complaining about the wrong things. You should get angry that in our country we even have statistics like this. Doesn't it make you embarrassed for the richest country in the world to have so many working poor?

[Stephen Eisel]

Like I said, you should read about the Gini index since it's something basic and easy to understand and is taught in intro economics, usally accompanied by an explantion of why the poverty line is not a correct estimation.

WOW! The Gini Index / coefficient! My professor learned me that the Gini Index doez not measure wealth or poverty.. Imagine a country with a median income of $50k and then the top 1.5% of that country earning 12 times the median income...What would there Gini score be? I wonder if Gini is hawt?

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen,

You do realize that the poverty line has not adjusted properly for inflation since it was established? That it is actually lower than it should be? That some people who are above it should technically be considered poor?

The threshold is adjusted for inflation each year. When you say "properly" what do you mean? can you come up with some facts for once? Also, the Federal Government spends about $60 billion a year on poverty initiatives.. Is that not enough?

[Stephen Eisel]

Here is the thing. We live in the modern world. Standards of living have changed. Not having a refrigerator is sad. Not having a stove is equally sad.

These applicances have become standard, whether you think they are frivolous or not. In fact, low quality ones are quite easy to come by. But really, a stove and a refrigerator are hardly amenities.

Living in a "modern world" here in the US where major household applinaces are considered standard is a change in the standard of living for the better.. add cable, cell phones, A/C, Wii, washer and dryer to that list.. And, you are complaining that are poor are getting poorer? compared to who?

[Stephen Eisel]

You know the rich are actually not spending as much or creating as many jobs right? It's really the smaller entreprenuers who are NOT in that top .1% that create jobs.

any facts?

[Thealexa Becker]

Like I said, you should read about the Gini index since it's something basic and easy to understand and is taught in intro economics, usally accompanied by an explantion of why the poverty line is not a correct estimation.

WOW! The Gini Index / coefficient! My professor learned me that the Gini Index doez not measure wealth or poverty.. Imagine a country with a median income of $50k and then the top 1.5% of that country earning 12 times the median income...What would there Gini score be? I wonder if Gini is hawt?

You're professor must be a sham if you taught you to speak like that.

I couldn't even understand that. In English what are you even saying?

[Thealexa Becker]

Here is the thing. We live in the modern world. Standards of living have changed. Not having a refrigerator is sad. Not having a stove is equally sad.

These applicances have become standard, whether you think they are frivolous or not. In fact, low quality ones are quite easy to come by. But really, a stove and a refrigerator are hardly amenities.

Living in a "modern world" here in the US where major household applinaces are considered standard is a change in the standard of living for the better.. add cable, cell phones, A/C, Wii, washer and dryer to that list.. And, you are complaining that are poor are getting poorer? compared to who?

Compared to the other people in this country measured by this country's standards.

So I ask you. What does a poor person look like to Stephen Eisel? Should they look like the starving people in Africa? Is that what it will take to convince you that conditions in THIS COUNTRY aren't that great for the working poor? Never mind how bad conditions are in other countries, because no one is saying they aren't terrible there too.

What would the poor have to do to convince you that they could be doing better?

What would you do to fix the problem of the poor, Stephen? It's one thing to be critical, it's another to have a solution, or know someone who has a solution you support, because you don't seem to have either.

[Stephen Eisel]

Compared to the other people in this country measured by this country's standards.

So I ask you. What does a poor person look like to Stephen Eisel? Should they look like the starving people in Africa? Is that what it will take to convince you that conditions in THIS COUNTRY aren't that great for the working poor? Never mind how bad conditions are in other countries, because no one is saying they aren't terrible there too.

What would the poor have to do to convince you that they could be doing better?

What would you do to fix the problem of the poor, Stephen? It's one thing to be critical, it's another to have a solution, or know someone who has a solution you support, because you don't seem to have either.

Poor is not a look but rather an economic condition. The remedy should not be to burden/punish the successful and discourage them from continuing to be successful. Steve Forbes had the solution. We need to created more jobs and opportunities for all via economic growth. Not a return to the days of Jimmy Carter of taxing the rich that only results in entire industries such as yacht building leaving this country.

[Thealexa Becker]

Compared to the other people in this country measured by this country's standards.

So I ask you. What does a poor person look like to Stephen Eisel? Should they look like the starving people in Africa? Is that what it will take to convince you that conditions in THIS COUNTRY aren't that great for the working poor? Never mind how bad conditions are in other countries, because no one is saying they aren't terrible there too.

What would the poor have to do to convince you that they could be doing better?

What would you do to fix the problem of the poor, Stephen? It's one thing to be critical, it's another to have a solution, or know someone who has a solution you support, because you don't seem to have either.

Poor is not a look but rather an economic condition. The remedy should not be to burden/punish the successful and discourage them from continuing to be successful. Steve Forbes had the solution. We need to created more jobs and opportunities for all via economic growth. Not a return to the days of Jimmy Carter of taxing the rich that only results in entire industries such as yacht building leaving this country.

Nice goal, how do you suggest we create the jobs, specifically?

What exactly is the plan that Steve Forbes has? Because this is all rather vague. I mean I would like to stop world hunger by getting food to poor people. But that isn't very detailed.

Politicians and pundits like to throw around catchphrases, like "job creation" etc, but they never really have a solid plan. It's a common problem. I haven't been alive during an administration that has ever had a good plan.

[Roy Pitchford]

Doesn't it make you embarrassed for the richest country in the world to have so many working poor?

Something just dawned on me...
Obama's been prattling on about the wealthiest 1% not paying their fair share, well what about poorest 1% who are capable of being so much more and choosing to sponge off the rest of us. What about them doing their fair share of work?

I know, I'm such a horrible person for suggesting this.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

What embarrasses me is how much the most successful country in the world is dragged down because the poorest won't do their fair share of the work. Imagine where we could be if everyone at least tried to pull their weight.

Why do you think it is bad that the poor have all these items?

I don't and never said I did. I asked where you draw the line on "poor". My point is that the American concept of "poor" is highly skewed. What the government defines as poor is really not that far from average America.

[quote=Reagan, 1961]This progressive income tax was spawned by Karl Marx a hundred years ago. The steepest rate of increase in the surtax brackets occurs through the middle income range where to be found the bulk of our small-businessmen, our professional people, our supervisory personnel and many of our farmers. It reaches 50% and incidentally, these are the people that Karl Marx said should be taxed out of existence. It reaches 50% at 16 or 18 thousand dollars of income. This is considered such a luxury and yet the New York Supreme Court has recently ruled that a man earning $14,000 a year is so poverty-stricken that he should be entitled to live in government-subsidized public housing.[/quote]

What does a REAL poor person look like to Roy Pitchford?

A tent under a bridge or highway overpass. An early 80s station wagon stuffed to its front seats with its owners only possessions. The...oh I'll say it...the library patrons who bathe in the bathrooms.

[Grace O'Malley]

Roy

You are seriously misinformed if you think the poorest 1% is not doing their "fair share." In fact, the poorest of the poor are overwhelmingly the elderly, children, and those with physical and mental disabilities.

And yes, I do think you are a person in need of some empathy. Just exactly what do you expect of these people? God forbid you ever encounter any real adversity in YOUR charmed life. But then again, most people I know that share your sort of beliefs are the first in line to collect unemployment, free vaccinations, family medical and maternity leave, and Social Security and Medicare. You know, those things that YOU are entitled to because YOU paid into them, forgetting that they only exist because as a society we all agreed to share the cost.

[Roy Pitchford]

And yes, I do think you are a person in need of some empathy. Just exactly what do you expect of these people? God forbid you ever encounter any real adversity in YOUR charmed life. But then again, most people I know that share your sort of beliefs are the first in line to collect unemployment, free vaccinations, family medical and maternity leave, and Social Security and Medicare. You know, those things that YOU are entitled to because YOU paid into them, forgetting that they only exist because as a society we all agreed to share the cost.

You don't know anyone like me then.
I don't pay into Social Security, I pay into the OPERS system and I'll be completely honest with you, I view that money as completely gone. I'm not depending on it for my retirement. I've been doing my own retirement savings out of what's left of my paycheck after all three levels of government are finished taking what I worked for. I give my 100% effort and my reward is 70% of my paycheck.
And with all that against me, I have a home, a car and I can live a comfortable life.

You're right, god forbid I encounter any adversity...but if I do, I've worked and saved my money so I can weather that adversity. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
I haven't overextended myself to the point that I'm carrying balances on multiple credit cards or living paycheck-to-paycheck like our government.

As for empathy, I am very empathetic towards those people who truly need our help. I have no empathy for those who are capable and make the choice not to make an effort. I am disturbed by the fact that, over the century, our government has created a society of dependence. The elderly survived almost 200 years in our country without Medicare.

Counting the twenty-three million of us who are veterans and the recent liberalization of our benefits and those other government programs already enacted, today one out of four American citizens is entitled to some form of government paid medical or hospital care. Now it is proposed that all people of Social Security age should come under a program of such comprehensive government care. On an emotional basis, we are presented with a picture of our senior citizens, millions of them, needing medical care, unable to finance it. But somehow in this plea, the proponents of this measure fail to, or seem strangely reluctant, to meet the facts face-to-face. In the last decade, 127 million Americans have come under the protection of some form of private medical or hospital insurance. This includes some two-thirds of the people of Social Security age, seventy percent of the total population. And if the same rate continues, by 1970, the coverage will amount to ninety percent of our population. As nearly as we can determine, the real problem concerns about ten percent of our senior citizens who have medical needs and who do not have the means to finance them. To that end, the last session of Congress adopted a program known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. To make funds available through the states to provide medical care for that ten percent. Now, without even waiting to see if that program will work, we find that the proponents of this other program, the once defeated Forand Bill, are pleading that the only you can meet the problem of these ten percent is an overall compulsory program forcing all people into compulsory government insurance above age 65 whether they need it or not.

[Will Brown]

I think you can not expect a more equal distribution of wealth unless you can create a more equal distribution of talent and diligence. Disregarding the unfortunate results of the elimination of the estate tax, the economically successfull succeed largely because they are diligent and make good financial decisions. Many of the economically unsuccessful (the poor) make bad financial decisions. Giving them more will just cause more bad financial decisions; who do you think buys all the lottery tickets? I think it is not the rich.

I know the nanny statists view your money as theirs, and consider taxing just getting some of their money, not as getting some of yours. But many of us disagree and feel that taxing our income is taking something from us, and many of us resent having our money taken to subsidize policies that we don't support. If you don't take, via increased taxes, some dollars from the rich, those dollars will probably be invested, which should benefit all of us by making the economy healthy (I'm not sure buying fine art, for example, benefits the economy as much as other investments, but I'm willing to consider it a cultural benefit).

My own belief is that the nanny state has decreased incentive and opportunity for the poor. The poor often have a pretty comfortable existence, with subsidies of all types, and none of the hassles they would have if they had to get up early every day and put in a full day working. Some government programs actually discourage employment; if Uncle Sam gives you $100 a week, tax free and certain, but you then get a job to earn $100 a week, the federal check will stop, and on payday you will get less than $100 because of deductions, and risk getting laid off! Which would you choose?

Unfortunately, we have been moving into the nanny state so long and so far that many of us, including the main stream media, can't comprehend how things would work if we ended these subsidies (and yes, I know many non-poor and businesses get subsidies also; my answer is end them all). But I am thinking that families, churches, and charities would become much more important in dealing with the poor. As these entities would be closer to the individual, they would be in a better position to demand constructive behaviour. No bureaucrat is ever going to tell a recipient to get up instead of sleeping in; his family would be in a better position to do that.

I'm not a tea partier (I think I would fail the religious litmus test), but I am sympathetic to many of their essentially new ideas of getting the federal government out of our lives, and of making the extended family more important in our lives. While I am not religious, I would not hold that against anyone per se, but I think we should all realize that not all religious people are necessarily good and moral.