In 2005, there were 15.9 million people
Your numbers are way off. Try 40 million at or in poverty and you'll be much closer to reality. 2 of three of these are female, 1 in 3 under 17.
Posted by phidipides at February 24, 2007 08:28 AMGet used to it, this is our future. Once poverty rates start to increase, it's very difficult to start turning things around--the Exxon Valdez crew knew it was going to hit Bligh reef, but the inertia of the ship was too great at that point.
The terrible social and economic ills attendant to substantial numbers in poverty are upon us, exactly as many lib'rul experts predicted would happen under "conservative" Repub "policies".
The wages of "conservatism" and blithe, complacent parroting of "individual responsibility". As ye sow, so shall ye reap, Repub fools. Except we're ALL going to suffer for their irresponsible absurd "governance".
Posted by euzoius at February 24, 2007 08:33 AM... but this is the America that our corporate sponsors want! They have worked hard and long to get us here.
Posted by gail at February 24, 2007 08:41 AMI'll bet you could count more than 15.9 million undocumented people under the poverty level before you even start ringing doorbells in Appalacia and the Ozarks.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 24, 2007 09:10 AMYh w knw, t's ll th flt f th hvs. Thrfr th lft sng th rn fst f gvrnmnt shld cnfsct th bty nd ftr rwrdng th prty fthfl, nsttt mtchng prvtn. MGB, MGB....
[Editor: ignore=off]soccerdad,
Thanks for dragging this absolutely disgraceful refutation of American exceptionalism under our noses. The growing polarization of wealth and income, a signature national feature, is directly related to the absolute evasion of any authentic financial, political or social responsibilty in the priorities of the corporations and wealthy individuals that dominate our political institutions.
One instrument of evasion is the proliferation of sales taxes and regression of income taxes to support all levels of government. The hypocrisy evident in the tax dodging of corporations and the wealthy is matched by their dodging of personal military service in the deceitful wars foist upon us by their corporate agenda.
We can thank both the GOP and Blue Dog/Vichy Democrats for this triumph of bipartisanship. Heck of a job, fellas.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at February 24, 2007 09:35 AMHow else are you going to have an all volunteer military? If these people had jobs they would never have to enter the military.
Yeah we know, it's all the fault of the haves. Therefore the left using the iron fist of government should confiscate the booty and after rewarding the party faithful, institute matching privation.
Once again, bendejo tries to accuse the left of doing something that the right has already succeeded at. Stupid fucker, we have no booty left to confiscate.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 24, 2007 09:52 AMYeah we know, it's all the fault of the haves.
Indeed, you are correct. As the Mad King, idiot son of George, says: "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." And it's the fault of a society continually told it's number one, when in fact we are anything but, and who won't rise up and hold you accountable for your fascism. I know you don't read, but you might try this as a starter..."Merca, we is numer 1." Folks like you turned us'ns into a real paradise.
Posted by phidipides at February 24, 2007 09:54 AMFrom the McClatchy study--Over the last two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations.
What will Senator Obama do?--from his website-- The Child Tax Credit allows parents to receive $1,000 per child and has been an important financial resource for working families. Unfortunately, the credit is skewed so that many families who need it the most cannot get it. Because of artificially high income limits that are indexed to inflation every year, parents that work full time at minimum wage are not eligible for the credit. As a result, nearly 17 million low-income children get less than the full credit. Senator Obama worked with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-WA) to introduce legislation lowering the income limit so that 600,000 more families can benefit.
17 million children. 600,000 families. hmmmmm
Posted by Don Bacon at February 24, 2007 10:20 AMJust more customers for your local Wal-Mart...hell, many of those at the poverty level work for Wal-Mart.
Posted by barrisj at February 24, 2007 10:23 AMFor perspective's sake, you can check this handy website to see how much we've spent on King George's war, (almost $370 Billion, and rising) and what else we could have spent it on:
Cost of War - National Priorities Project
Also, here's a nice piece that details the effects of Bush's proposed gift of cutting the inheritance tax (a cause celebre for the 18 richest families in the US)
Maybe We Deserve to Be Ripped Off By Bush's Billionaires
a snippet:
If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.
The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.
Priorities, priorities...
Posted by cheSF at February 24, 2007 11:04 AMTwo things have impacted wages.
The 1990's bubble burst in 2000. You can blame Greenspan for both creating the bubble and the demise of the bubble. He also kept rates too low for too long, creating the real estate bubble that is now unwinding.
Globalization. Lets face it, there are highly educated and skilled people outside of America willing to do the same work for less pay. And you can't really "protect" American jobs, because that leads to higher costs for US goods and services, thus consumers will buy other things. The ripple effect here is that if consumers are buying less US goods and services, then US jobs are lost.
Posted by muckdog at February 24, 2007 11:31 AMpdip - the article is really about severe poverty - something that has been growing and now is as bad as it has been for over 40 years.
Here was something more I learned about the problem of severe poverty:
The Washington area had three of the top 10 jurisdictions with the highest wages in the United States last year -- the District of Columbia, and Arlington and Fairfax counties -- setting it apart from most of the rest of the country where wages have stagnated this decade.
...The survey provides more evidence that the largess of the federal government -- particularly spending on defense, homeland security and intelligence -- has been a big generator of wealth and jobs for the Washington area. While high-paid federal jobs are concentrated in the District and Arlington, Fairfax's ascendance as a rich job haven, first reported in The Washington Times Jan. 27, mostly reflects the benefits of federal contracting work.
Kinda depends on who you are talking about in DC. From that McClatchy piece:
Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, has a higher concentration of severely poor people - 10.8 percent in 2005 - than any of the 50 states, topping even hurricane-ravaged Mississippi and Louisiana, with 9.3 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. Nearly six of 10 poor District residents are in extreme poverty.
Nice to know that government programs can work to create jobs and lift wages when you have the right priorities.
Posted by Mary at February 24, 2007 11:47 AMYeah we know, it's all the fault of the haves. Therefore the right using the iron fist of government should confiscate the booty of Iraq, block immigration to force a rise in food prices, double the number in severe poverty, cut property taxes to ruin their schools so their oppportunities are eliminated, reinstitute slavery so all of the right can finally get laid again, and then we can all worship at the altar of free market imperialism, in the United States of Amerikkka.
Sounds awful to me, but I'm certain it'll give a stiffie to someone.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at February 24, 2007 02:30 PMpdip - the article is really about severe poverty - something that has been growing and now is as bad as it has been for over 40 years.
The statement was: In 2005, there were 15.9 million people living in poverty of which 1.9 million were children under the age 0f 5.
Two things have impacted wages.
It should have read 15.9 million in severe poverty
have corrected it
Posted by soccerdad at February 24, 2007 04:17 PMpdip - my comment actually was in relation to the McClatchy article which was most definitely about severe poverty. Didn't mean to get you riled.
Thanks for putting up the Krugman piece. It's an important part in why so many more people are living in such distress these days -- although there are a number of other factors that also contribute to it, like offshoring, the so-called welfare reform bill, etc. It's a cruel world these days for the very poor.
Posted by Mary at February 24, 2007 05:38 PMAnd you can't really "protect" American jobs, because that leads to higher costs for US goods and services, thus consumers will buy other things.
Nope, sorry. Consumers will buy what they needeven when the price goes upo...think about gas last summer or after Katrina, milk, etc. The artifically low prices on plastic products at Wal-Mart may disappear, but, damn, they need to! Sure, people may buy "other" things but those things will be necessities. It's a win-win, American workers get paid a reasonable wage and we pay the honest cost of goods and services. Isn't that how a market based economy is supposed to work anyway?
Posted by ann at February 24, 2007 07:04 PM Several things jumped out at me reading this post. First I think we need to keep in perspective what we as Americans consider poverty. When we start throwing around some of these figures we are ingnoring the truely horrific conditions that many if not most of the people in this world live under. Secondly I think that both sides talk right past each other on this issue without admitting that each side has some valid points.
Take welfare reform as an example. We need to reform the system to change it so that people can keep their self respect and yet we need to make it unpleasant enough to get people off of it as fast as possible. Why is it that the system is set up to give little or no support to those families that are the working poor. Why do we give the most money to those people who will not go out and work and yet cut off money to those who do?
pdip - my comment actually was in relation to the McClatchy article which was most definitely about severe poverty. Didn't mean to get you riled.
I should have added a smiley face emoticon. I certainly wasn't riled at anyone. And certainly not at you or sd. I realized it was an incomplete sentence and I really didn't have an issue with it. I was just waiting for a neo-con to come along and say "See, poverty isn't that bad."
Why do we give the most money to those people who will not go out and work and yet cut off money to those who do?
And who are these people who won't go out and work? Please, tell me more about these people. I'll let you know that given all possible individual taxpayers, the cost of what you are calling "welfare" is about $120.00 per taxpayer. The cost of corporate "welfare" is about $9,000 per taxpayer. The total cost of defense is about $10,000. per taxpayer. And that is just this last fiscal year. So, tell me more about people who won't work and get anything for it. Who are these people?
When we start throwing around some of these figures we are ingnoring the truely horrific conditions that many if not most of the people in this world live under.
It could be because those people don't live in the wealthiest nation that ever existed.
Posted by phidipides at February 24, 2007 08:37 PM Well phidipides earlier in life I taught school in Eagle Butte SD which is located on one of the reservations here. I would constantly explain to my students that if they didn't work hard at school they wouldn't be able to get good grades and go to college or get good jobs. It never failed that each year I would get atleast one or to parents that would say that their child didn't need to go to school because they could live there and get everything paid for. Which was bad enough but even here in Mitchell SD I'm begining to here many of the same things. Now I know all people on welfare aren't there because they like it but we do have to admitt that there are those who do.
Also at no point did I claim that poverty isn't so bad. What I was saying or at least trying to get across is that we, who are doing the commenting and posting on this site, are slightly spoiled by our wealth and need to do a better job of looking at what problems in the world to fix first.
It never failed that each year I would get atleast one or to parents that would say that their child didn't need to go to school because they could live there and get everything paid for.
Sorry to be a grammar nazi Teach, but wouldn't that be "one or two parents".
And don't forget the disabled Veteran who gets accused of not wanting to work. Only thing, no one will pay a livable wage.
Don't give me the line about having to, "constantly explain to my students that if they didn't work hard at school they wouldn't be able to get good grades and go to college or get good jobs", when your on meds and have been injured your a liability. No one will hire you.
No, I refuse to sell Mary Kay products!
Well phidipides earlier in life I taught school in Eagle Butte SD
That's not welfare. Those are supports provided under treaty with the tribes -who exist as separate nations- in exchange for their lands. They had to go through a genocide to get it. Someone teaching there should know that.
Of course, the issue could be that the some of the biggest rascists I ever met in my life were white people in the Dakotas talking about Indians. And that is especially true for SD and ND. ND is probably the worst. Do they still find a lot of dead Indians "hit by cars" in the ditches there?
who are doing the commenting and posting on this site, are slightly spoiled by our wealth and need to do a better job of looking at what problems in the world to fix first.
I vote for starting with the ones here at home. And while doing so we should cause no harm to others, like NAFTA, and ending the small farms in Mexico for our corporate farms so that their farm workers have to come here in droves to find work.
No, I refuse to sell Mary Kay products!
(Big grin!)
Posted by phidipides at February 24, 2007 09:39 PM No problem on the spelling error seven of six I noticed it after I had posted and I was just to lazy to go back and correct it.
Now to go back to what I said earlier about both sides talking past each other we are doing it right now. I mean you could sit here alnight giving examples of those who need welfare and be perfectly correct. At the same time it doesn't take much work to go out and find those who work harder at beating the system rather than work honestly. My wife works part time with the mentally disabled and teaches full time. She has told me many times about some of the younger employees that she works with turning down full time positions because they would lose welfare benifits. This is the kind of failure of the welfare system that I'm talking about fixing.
Just for the record spelling has never been my strong suit.
Also nice Voyager reference seven of six.
She has told me many times about some of the younger employees that she works with turning down full time positions because they would lose welfare benifits
Which would be healthcare and daycare. So are you advocating Universal healthcare and daycare?
Posted by phidipides at February 24, 2007 09:43 PMWhy not both phidipides, I mean one of the biggest concerns on the right with both of those concepts is that they don't give choice to the people and that they are unresponsive. Why aren't we following the examples of the states that are providing their own universal care? States can be more responsive to their citizens and can crack down on those who abuse the system faster. Why not have the federal government give each state a block grant and step back and see what happens.
Posted by southdakotaboy at February 24, 2007 10:03 PMAn article on this very same subject in Ted Haggard's favorite newspaper, the Co. Springs Gazette.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 24, 2007 10:15 PM Just so that everyone is clear on this I taught school in Eagle Butte for six years 7th grade World Geography and 8th grade US History. I was the Jr. High student council advisor and I helped coach Jr. High football. I am part native American,though not an enrolled member. I ahve worked with the mentally challenged for several wonderfull years and have recently returned to teaching.
So far at this site I've had the fact that I taught school called in to question and have basically been accused of being a racist.
I think this is rather rude, but hey thats just me what do I know. I'm still rather new to this whole blogging thing anyway.
We can be an unruly bunch and very protective. Seriously Progressive.
I'm just a 100% disabled Vet who gets his panties in a wad once in a while. Especially when I want to work but it pays better to stay disabled. Your right, let's fix the system.
Hey no problem seven of six. I agree there are alot of things that we need to fix. I've only really started to read blogs in the last six months or so and have really just started to throw out my own comments recently.
I read the article that you linked to and it illistrates that there are some easy fixes to this if we just all step back and think out side the box.
P-dips reply was just nonsense, as usual. Linking to a Rolling Stone article about how the wealthy are taking everyone's money? Puh-leez. And remember, not only do they put people to work and create jobs, the rich also are the greatest philanthropists of our time. Bill and Melinda Gates are giving most of their wealth away. As is Warren Buffet. Lots of kids get scholarships to school. Money gets into research labs to find cures for diseases. ETC. Lets not hammer on the rich too much.
The fault for not "making it" comes down to personal choices. Did you drop out of high school? Did you not go to college? Did you get hooked on drugs? Did you get pregnant at 15? Did you end up in prison for crime? ETC. In most cases, we are a product of our own making. Look in the mirror. You are where you are, because of you.
Consumers will buy what they needeven when the price goes upo...think about gas last summer or after Katrina, milk, etc. The artifically low prices on plastic products at Wal-Mart may disappear, but, damn, they need to! Sure, people may buy "other" things but those things will be necessities. It's a win-win, American workers get paid a reasonable wage and we pay the honest cost of goods and services. Isn't that how a market based economy is supposed to work anyway?
Ann, your first point about gasoline is true. People need gasoline. They have to get to work, drive kids to school and soccer practice at night. There are errands to run, and White Flower Days at Macy's to go to on the weekends. People will cut other spending when gasoline goes up. That's why higher gas prices act like a tax on consumers. It takes money out of their pocket and sends it to the Mideast for oil, rather then being spent here on other things. People made choices. They ate out less. They shopped less. They bought cheaper things.
The market based economy IS working, Ann. The jobs are finding their way to lower cost workers in the Far East. That's how it works. If you *artificially* mandate that the jobs have to be done here by higher paid American workers, they you and I will make other choices when we go to the malls.
Example, if China makes the same-quality sneakers that cost $30 while America makes them at $200, what will shoppers decide on?
Example, if a technical support function in China costs $10/hr per employe while the same job here in America costs $50/hr per employee (employer has to pay benefits, health, retirement, social security and medicare), what happens to the costs of good and services if the company uses an American worker?
And you can't just penalize China for it, because they'll penalize us. See what happened in the 1930's as a result of this mentality. It creates a trade war, and nobody wins.
Posted by muckdog at February 25, 2007 09:54 AMP-dips reply was just nonsense, as usual.
And your comments are asinine and unrelated to any form of reality, as usual. The reason jobs are offshoring is because of the tax structure that allows unlimited profitability. How much corporate income tax do "American" phameceutical companies pay? None. Ray-gun assured that. Same with the cruise industry. Your statement that Americans must compete with global wages is terrifying since the Chinese average .57 cents an hour for income. No one can compete with that. And if you wish to force wages that low in the United States you, in turn, will make a comparable wage because everything will get shoved down.
Everything you state is only so much magic pixie dust. And if you don't like Krugman, you can get a similar analysis from any number of sources. But that you deny the wealthy aren't doing extremely well is just fucking stupid and shows your irrationality.
In most cases, we are a product of our own making.
Man, does that speak negative volumes about you. What the fuck were you raised by, wolves? This nation has always done best when we take care of the least amongst us. You have some weird dominionist ideology that does not resemble humanity. You need to go to Brazil. Your perfect society does exist. You can look at the slums and applaud as the death squads shoot the homeless children on the streets.
I think this is rather rude, but hey thats just me what do I know.
You still haven't said what or how would fix anything. All you've done is look at Indians and say they are lazy and won't do stuff, and that they get too much free stuff. Many think there need to be changes, at least be good enough to toss an idea into the ring instead of saying there are too many lazy people around.
Posted by phidipides at February 25, 2007 10:45 AMThe fault for not "making it" comes down to personal choices. Did you drop out of high school? Did you not go to college? Did you get hooked on drugs? Did you get pregnant at 15? Did you end up in prison for crime? ETC. In most cases, we are a product of our own making. Look in the mirror. You are where you are, because of you.
Or are you a member of the working poor who got sick and bankrupted by medical costs? (check the stats out on that one).
You may be a single parent, trying to make ends meet at the bottom of a job market where a full-time job at minimum wage doesn't even rise above the poverty line. You may have even been poisoned by lead or mercury as a child, as a result of living in an industrialized neighborhood, thus being impaired from the start.
It's the same old story, whereby someone who's 'made it,' chalks it up to thir own personal grit and integrity, while at the same time stereotyping the poor as somehow deserving of their fate, rising in indignation only to rail at 'welfare queens driving their Cadillacs to pick up their checks.'
Some people are born on third base, thinking they hit a triple--others are born on first and scorn those who can't get out of the batters box.
Posted by cheSF at February 25, 2007 11:46 AMI'd say Muckdog is simply an oblivious, smug, complacent 40-50ish white male who doesn't have the maturity or judgement to see the many "legs-up" he received (through absolutely no merit of his own) as a child, which many, many others (especially in BushAmerica) simply don't receive.
He egocentrically thinks he did it all by "makin' the right choices", a very common ideological platitude of the "conservative" Right. Very unevolved, self-centered, childish and shallow.
Simply getting to attend a school which isn't a madhouse is an incalcuable benefit, as is a stable home environment. Lots of the things "successful" people take/took for granted as kids, others have no "choice" about; they just don't get to have them.
But to these appalling "conservatives" it's entirely the (failed) kids "fault" if they don't receive those advantages: they made some bad "choices".
The face of "compassionate conservatism". Barf.
Posted by euzoius at February 25, 2007 02:36 PMmuck is probably single by (personal) choice, can you imagine him having to share his income with a significant other. I'm sure he has no children (another choice), costs are high to feed, clothe, insure and care for them. He takes no real risks in life. He satiates his own selfish desires, mostly the stock market and things such as gambling. He stays in good phsyical condition by cycling and is a vegan. Unfortunately, he lacks empathy and anything resembling a soul.
How close am I muck?
Posted by Seven of Six at February 25, 2007 06:34 PM