Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats. (https://www.miataturbo.net/)
-   Current Events, News, Politics (https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/)
-   -   Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox (https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/modern-poverty-includes-c-xbox-59213/)

mgeoffriau 07-19-2011 10:28 AM

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox
 
Not really surprising, but confirmation of what I've suspected. The level of societal wealth in the US is, by any historical standard, astoundingly high.


Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox


When Americans think of poverty, we tend to picture people who can’t adequately shelter, clothe, and feed themselves or their families.

When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor.”

Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper.

“Most news stories on poverty feature homeless families, people living in crumbling shacks, or lines of the downtrodden eating in soup kitchens,” Rector says. “The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from these images.”

Congress is tying itself in knots figuring out how to cut spending and bring down a $14 trillion national debt. Lawmakers might well take a much closer look at the nearly a trillion dollars spent each year on welfare even though many recipients aren’t what the typical American would recognize as poor and in need of government assistance.

What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

http://global.nationalreview.com/des..._poor_list.jpg

Rather than report such detailed surveys, Rector and co-author Rachel Sheffield write, the media “amplified” the Census Bureau’s annual misrepresentation of poverty over the past 40 years. News reports routinely suggest that poor Americans typically are homeless and hungry — and U.S. foes and rivals such as Iran, China, and Russia are delighted to report the same.

“Regrettably, most discussions of poverty in the U.S. rely on sensationalism, exaggeration, and misinformation,” Rector says. “But an effective anti-poverty policy must be based on an accurate assessment of actual living conditions and the causes of deprivation.”

See the full Heritage Foundation paper, including downloadable charts, here: “Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What Is Poverty in the United States Today?

hustler 07-19-2011 11:03 AM

"We need more tax revenue!!!"

Braineack 07-19-2011 11:13 AM

I dont even have a microwave or dishwasher.

thegrapist 07-19-2011 11:17 AM



There was a pretty notable paper written a bit ago about how per capita crime didn't increase during a rather lengthy economic downturn. The most likely attributable cause? You tube and video games. Religion used to be a tool to control the masses now it's halo and terraria. Plus, how many people on food stamps do you see buying retarded shit like soda and frozen food at the grocery store. A good majority are in that position because they made bad decisions. Namely breathing and procreating.

Savington 07-19-2011 12:03 PM


Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper.
This is a great example of why I hate think-tanks. This fucking tool makes this claim as if Census officials have the autonomy to personally decide who is poor and who isn't. :rolleyes: The poverty line is the poverty line, it's set by the CPI-U, and Census officials don't exaggerate shit.

If he actually were writing the paper to shine light on an issue he thought could be changed (instead of writing some inflammatory anti-Census bullshit), he would have phrased it like this:


The method by which the Census Bureau uses to measure poverty continues to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor.
------

Legitimate question: Reagan raised taxes several times during the mid 80s, during a recession, and with unemployment at nearly 10%. This paper goes into a bit more detail and offers some modern-day dollar comparisons too. If you don't think we should raise taxes today, do you understand why Reagan raised them in the 80s, and can you tell me why today's issue is different?

Braineack 07-19-2011 12:23 PM

Even in places Reagan raised taxes, he netted a reduction of taxes. in 1988, for example, he increased taxes 132.7 billion, but cut taxes 275.3 billion in other places.

Under Reagan, Tax rates dropped while revenues to the treasury doubled, and 20 million jobs were created in 8 years.

Increasing taxes won't pay this year's 1.1 trillion deficit budget, let alone any of the over 14 trillion accumulated. The budget can be balanced without increases, you just gotta stop spending. If taxes are going to be raised, it should be on the backs of the 51% of americans that don't pay taxes but reap up benefits of the extravagant services provided to them.

Reagan also complained, that with all his tax cuts, Congress refused to stop spending and increase spending.

rleete 07-19-2011 12:35 PM

I've gotten where i am by being frugal. Wife and I have very little debt (HELOC), no car or mortgage payments, and a small retirement plan. To get here, I had to forego some of the "perks". There are some I just don't want (cell phone), and some I'd like (nicer car) but have chosen not to have to be financially independent.

It's time we make these "poor" people do without or starve. I don't have a second fridge, why should someone on assistance? Sell the stuff before you get any money. If you're truley hurting, we will help, otherwise go get a damn job.

revlimiter 07-19-2011 12:38 PM

I don't even have cable. Or a VCR. Or more than 1 fridge.

Savington 07-19-2011 01:10 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 750862)
Even in places Reagan raised taxes, he netted a reduction of taxes. in 1988, for example, he increased taxes 132.7 billion, but cut taxes 275.3 billion in other places.

I expect more from you, brainey. Those numbers are cumulative over his entire presidency, and all but 11 billion of the cuts came in '81. full chart


Under Reagan, Tax rates dropped while revenues to the treasury doubled...
That's sensationalist and completely untrue. $599.3B in FY'81, $909.2B in FY'88 is 51.7%, not 100% - and that's if you totally ignore inflation, which I'm not going to let you do. ;)

Adjust to FY2005 dollars, and you get $1,251.4B in '81 and $1,421.1B in '88. That's 13.5%, not "double". :facepalm:

source


Increasing taxes won't pay this year's 1.1 trillion deficit budget, let alone any of the over 14 trillion accumulated. The budget can be balanced without increases, you just gotta stop spending. If taxes are going to be raised, it should be on the backs of the 51% of americans that don't pay taxes but reap up benefits of the extravagant services provided to them.
More sensationalism and lies, although a bit less blatant this time I guess.

85% of Americans pay taxes, whether you like it or not.

I'll agree that the top 20% pay more than their fair share, but if you make less than ~$100,000, someone else is paying the rest of your share, too.

thirdgen 07-19-2011 01:19 PM

I don't have a dishwasher, cause I have this theory that the nation is fat cause we have it too easy. If you can make a plate messy, then you can clean it without simply loading it in the dishwasher. Things that are created to simplify our lives, tend to only make us lazy.
To stay on topic...I live near a lot of Mennonites. The children have cell phones. Not that the mennonite community is poor, or collecting welfare; I just find it odd that they allow that with their beliefs.

mgeoffriau 07-19-2011 01:20 PM

Sav, you're missing the point -- which is that what we currently call "the poor" in America has zero relation to those who are actually poor, globally or historically.

Yes, there are homeless and starving people in the US. However, the idea that there exists an entire class of people in the US who make so little money that they cannot put food on the table or a roof over their heads is a fiction, and that fiction is perpetuated by misleading statistics that refer to people who (apparently) have enough disposable income to purchase numerous consumer electronics for their leisure and entertainment as "the poor."

hustler 07-19-2011 01:46 PM


Originally Posted by Savington (Post 750879)
I expect more from you, brainey. Those numbers are cumulative over his entire presidency, and all but 11 billion of the cuts came in '81. full chart



That's sensationalist and completely untrue. $599.3B in FY'81, $909.2B in FY'88 is 51.7%, not 100% - and that's if you totally ignore inflation, which I'm not going to let you do. ;)

Adjust to FY2005 dollars, and you get $1,251.4B in '81 and $1,421.1B in '88. That's 13.5%, not "double". :facepalm:

source



More sensationalism and lies, although a bit less blatant this time I guess.

85% of Americans pay taxes, whether you like it or not.

I'll agree that the top 20% pay more than their fair share, but if you make less than ~$100,000, someone else is paying the rest of your share, too.

My GF disagrees with all of you and she is all knowing on economic issues. What percentage of my income went to the government during Regan compared to today? As long as the federal government is building conference halls with polished stone from six different countries and paying for alcoholism awareness for Chinese prostitutes, we don't need a tax increase.

This nation needs to cease funding bullshit programs which America doesn't need.

Savington 07-19-2011 01:49 PM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 750885)
Sav, you're missing the point -- which is that what we currently call "the poor" in America has zero relation to those who are actually poor, globally or historically.

I didn't miss it - based on that chart I'm inclined to agree. My gripe was specifically with the author's rhetoric and shitty journalism overall. $1 trillion on welfare? :bowrofl:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

The original report is linked in the article you posted, but there's the link again - it's a lot less talking-points based and it has a lot more data below the chart you posted too. The author did a similar report 4 years ago as well.

hustler 07-19-2011 01:50 PM


Originally Posted by Savington (Post 750879)

Pick a more liberal news source.

Braineack 07-19-2011 01:58 PM


Originally Posted by Savington (Post 750879)
I expect more from you, brainey. Those numbers are cumulative over his entire presidency, and all but 11 billion of the cuts came in '81. full chart

It's kinda like what's happening now, he made consessions, but still reduced government overall. the 1982 tax increase was a deal - he was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes. He never got the spending cut. Income taxes were still cut more overall than SS taxes were increased.


That's sensationalist and completely untrue. $599.3B in FY'81, $909.2B in FY'88 is 51.7%, not 100% - and that's if you totally ignore inflation, which I'm not going to let you do. ;)
It's when you look at the decade of 1980 to 1990 - federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. inflation adjusted according to that chart is ~47%.

Really the thing to take away from Reagan was that his reforms and cuts, along with deregulation resulted in one of the largest economic booms in Anerican history. Regardless of the semantics.

Doppelgänger 07-19-2011 02:21 PM

First World Problems- Being "poor" in America.

Our government does a terrible job at handing out money to those who don't need it. It would be nice to be able to yank the money rug out from those who are clearly not in need of such funds. Like the chickenheads in the grocery story with a full cart of food paid for in cash and a cart full of beer pair for with food stamps and a Cadillac SUV parked out front. I simple ass beating would be more fun though.

Braineack 07-19-2011 02:25 PM

you said chickenhead. lol.

Savington 07-19-2011 02:37 PM


Originally Posted by hustler (Post 750895)
What percentage of my income went to the government during Regan compared to today?

Less. You don't pay enough taxes, no matter how you look at it (share of total federal income tax, tax reciepts as percentage of GDP, raw tax rates, upside down, through the rosy tint of your girlfriend's glass "enjoyment jewlery", etc).

Let's pick a few years to make it fun: '82, '85, '88, '05, and '10.

Assuming you made 80k/yr in 2005 (makes the mathz easy)

Adjust for inflation:
'82 - $41,088, 26.5% net rate
'85 - $46,944, 26.2% net rate
'88 - $51,184, 24.3% net rate
'05 - $80,000, 21.1% net rate
'10 - $90,160, 21.0% net rate

Savington 07-19-2011 02:38 PM


Originally Posted by hustler (Post 750898)
Pick a more liberal news source.

More liberal than the WSJ? :hustler:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wpisrc=nl_wonk



Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 750907)
It's when you look at the decade of 1980 to 1990 - federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. inflation adjusted according to that chart is ~47%.

Are we looking at the same chart? Adjusted to FY2005, $1.197T to $1.508T is only a 26% increase. Still not double, by the way.

Braineack 07-19-2011 02:52 PM

taxes be damned, it still doesn't solve the spending problem:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...evenue-850.jpg
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget - inflation adjusted.






But I know who can pay for it:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-co...729-chart2.jpg





and what they are spending it on:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...ograms-600.jpg


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands