Poverty Rate Reaches Highest Levels

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I know.

(Although I thought you had outgrown it.)

Hey, I used to mean it when I said it!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Hey, I used to mean it when I said it!

I know that also.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I know that also.

No wonder you believe in God.

[LexusLover]

Back on topic, and a question posed ...

Before "we" decide what can be done about lowering the poverty level I "believe" that a determination ought to be made as to just what % of persons in the U.S. are:

1. "involunatarily in poverty" of the published %;
2. what % of the published % are here in this country legally; and
3. what % of the published % are already on an assistance program.

Kind of like the re-evaluation of the number without health insurance ....

Doesn't the actual number of persons who are permanent residents or citizens in this country who are "involuntarily in poverty" matter as far as determining a "fix"?

And then a second question is just how much revenue/benefits are they actually receiving?

[Fast Gunn]

It sounds like you are merely splitting hairs like the people who argue over the shape of the conference table before even addressing the very real issues that cry out for solutions.

I think we can safely say that the majority of people in poverty are there involuntarily.

Generally, people who are in poverty are there because the economy is in recession and they lost their jobs.

The idiot from Crawford, Texas is largely responsible for the abysmal state of the economy and President Obama has a Herculean task in getting this country out of the hole Bush dug for us.

Now, we need solutions to this very real problem and I haven't heard any so far beside the very broad 6 point outline that I proposed earlier.

I am waiting for some of the heavyweights to contribute some meaningful ideas to get this country back on track.

. . . Speak up, folks! The country cries out for solutions!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Back on topic, and a question posed ...

Before "we" decide what can be done about lowering the poverty level I "believe" that a determination ought to be made as to just what % of persons in the U.S. are:

1. "involunatarily in poverty" of the published %;
2. what % of the published % are here in this country legally; and
3. what % of the published % are already on an assistance program.

Kind of like the re-evaluation of the number without health insurance ....

Doesn't the actual number of persons who are permanent residents or citizens in this country who are "involuntarily in poverty" matter as far as determining a "fix"?

And then a second question is just how much revenue/benefits are they actually receiving?

[Jdriller]

So the cure to poverty and unemployment is to pull all out troops out of the Middle East wars? That's several hundred thousand solders. Then cut defense spending (read military) by 50% or so and save several hundred billion dollars per year off the government budget. Then we take a lot of that money and use it to fix roads, bridges, build super railways and work on the infrastructure. But, when the solders come home and we cut our force numbers back and let a lot of them go what kind of jobs will they get in civilian life (since few companies are hiring and 5 people or more are already applying for each job opening now) How long would it take to get the infrastructure makeover up and running? Months, years? Companies involved in making products for the military will have to cut back, many may go out of business. What happens to their employees? I see a major spike in unemployment in this plan. What are we going to do with all these newly unemployed people while we figure out how to fund the infrastructure projects, while waiting for the endless environmental studies required to make sure some salamander or insect won't be impacted by all this new construction? Then what about all the people who used to work for the companies supplying the military who no longer get an earned paycheck. They won't have money to spend on stuff they need, like cars, tv's and other consumer stuff. Many may lose their homes because they can't sell them for what they owe. Let's add another serveral thousands of forclosures to the housing market. The stores that depended on their spending will be hit hard and they will have to downsize somewhat and let another few thousand people go. There is no simple solution. For every action there is a reaction

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by sofiaofhouston

Lack the intellect to make a point and argue it well.

huh?

on subject

I just drove to Austin and back to Dallas yesterday and home today but thru Lawton OK

I saw lots of "we are hiring signs" yea most are min wage but one said $10.00 an hour and one was for Lennox, so they have to pay well

point is there are jobs out there, maybe not to your liking but it is something

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

It sounds like you are merely splitting hairs like the people who argue over the shape of the conference table before even addressing the very real issues that cry out for solutions.

Actually, you are arguing and name calling, I wasn't. When you desire to have a constructive and producting conversation on the topic, just make that known.

If 15% are "in poverty" a "majority" is 7.6%. That can make a difference.

If of the 7.6% 1/2 are either citizens or residents, that means 3.8%.

And of the 3.8% if 1/2 are already on some form of assistance, that means that "we" only need to supplement 1.9% and then figure out how to get the other 1.9% above the "poverty line."

A solution for 1.9% would be different than for 15%. And less costly.

Unless of course the liberal-spend thrifts in this country want to "out source" our welfare system and continue to support the unemployed, sick, and poor from next door.

And since the snake oil sales man from Chicago, likes to play statistical games with "job increases" to sell more snake oil, then he ought to jump on board with that concept in a New York second.