American attitudes, where are we at today.

In reply to The Jeeza:

Nice graph. But how does it fit into this discussion? And who's side it it supposed to support? And where are the state graphs to go with it?

If I had to guess- I'd suppose that when I said "disproportionate level of resources, you thought I meant of the overall budget. I was talking about the resources allocated to the poor in general dispropotially going to the chronically poor. But since you brought it up, that graph is misleading anyway. It doesn't include the states, and what is that big blue chunk called healthcare? I'm fairly certain that much of that is another way of saying welfare.

Boost_Crazy wrote:

In reply to Boost_Crazy: I've spent a lot of years working in and around poor people. Very few move out of it. It is a deeply rooted, powerful cultural mindset that lasts through multiple generations. Except for "poor college students". But, they are not really poor, or they wouldn't be in college.

Not true at all. The vast majority of people counted as poor today, will not be counted as poor five or ten years from now.

I have no idea what you are talking about, so how about explaining a bit more?

Who are you talking about when you say "The vast majority of people counted as poor today..."?

Do you mean individuals whose income falls below the poverty line?

They are not poor. That's those college students I was referring to.

I am referring to people who live in poverty. They are usually under educated, often broken families, frequently multi-generational wefare recipients. Often with children born out of wedlock. Sometimes they live in inner cities, sometime in rural poverty.

You describe things like "graduate High School" and "Don't have kids out of wedlock" like choices that people make in logical manners that lead to predictable results. I refer to those same things as characteristics of the culture of poverty, which are common to poverty virtually anywhere- inner cities, rural areas, 3rd world countries.

Where I live, the High School dropout rate is nearly 50%, and there is childcare available in the High School for children of students.

It might have something to do with Vacaville, CA.

I am still willing to listen, but I think I need you to try a little harder to describe who you are talking about before I am willing to give what you are saying much credibility.

A link, reference, or better description would be helpful, instead of phrases like "vast majority".

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

You are partly correct that poverty is a choice.

But if you have no idea what other choices are available, there is not much choosing.

The Jeeza wrote: Source

Contrast that with this version (FYI, I think yours is a much more accurate representation):

SVreX wrote: You describe things like "graduate High School" and "Don't have kids out of wedlock" like choices that people make in logical manners that lead to predictable results.

They are. The fact that most people decide to make them NOT in a rational manner is the fault of the decider, not of the decision.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: You describe things like "graduate High School" and "Don't have kids out of wedlock" like choices that people make in logical manners that lead to predictable results.

They are. The fact that most people decide to make them NOT in a rational manner is the fault of the decider, not of the decision.

When it is all you know or have been taught, it looks perfectly logical.

Almost 10 pages of excellent discussion...well done folks.

In reply to Boost_Crazy and Duke:

I think we have very different experiences, which give us rather different perspectives:

Albany, GA:

Median household income: $25,191

Elderly below poverty line: 13.8%

Vacaville, CA:

Median household income: $57,667

Elderly below poverty line: 4.8%

Newark, DE

Median household income: $48,758

Elderly below poverty line: 7.1%

When 1/3 of families and 55% of children live below the poverty line, the entire community is experiencing something very different than what you are.

In reply to SVreX:

I haven't vetted this source, but the numbers are pretty close to what I have found...

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411956_transitioningpoverty.pdfTransitioning from poverty

You can count poverty in many ways. The definition of poverty is constantly changing, usually to the benefit of politicians. I agree that the poverty line is not the best definition, but for the sake of arguement, we need to start somewhere. After all, you can always find someone poorer. If you are talking about the chronically poor, that is a very small portion of the population. And your comments about poor life choices just reinforces my argument. They are poor because they are choosing to be poor. They did not choose to finish school. They did not choose to prevent pregnancy. Throwing money at them won't take these people out of poverty. It will just enable them to continue making the same or worse poor life choices.

I fail to see how where I live has any relevance. Would you give me more credit if you knew my family came to California from one of the rougher areas of Baltimore? I'm in walking distance of both million dollar homes and homeless camps. I live and work in the California Bay Area, the pinnacle of progressive welfare. We also spend the most per student of any state. There are endless affordable housing solutions. We pay very high tax rates. So we must have solved the problem, right? Wrong. Come see Oakland. Or Richmond. Or Sacramento. Or Vallejo. Or Stockton. Or...

FYI- Just about every member of my family has spent some of their lives poor. Some even well exceeding your definition of poor. Most worked their way out of it, and have moved on to become teachers, engineers, police officers. Others did not. They accepted the welfare, made excuses, and continued to make poor choices.

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to The Jeeza: Nice graph. But how does it fit into this discussion? And who's side it it supposed to support? And where are the state graphs to go with it? If I had to guess- I'd suppose that when I said "disproportionate level of resources, you thought I meant of the overall budget. I was talking about the resources allocated to the poor in general dispropotially going to the chronically poor. But since you brought it up, that graph is misleading anyway. It doesn't include the states, and what is that big blue chunk called healthcare? I'm fairly certain that much of that is another way of saying welfare.

If state graphs are what you want to look at, great. Just make sure you take into account the amount of federal money that actually funds those programs vs state funds.

The graph is just a data source. You made some claims with zero data to support them. I just posted a graph with data and the source so you could look up how the data was compiled.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

Your links don't work

Datsun1500 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: My office is across the street from an elementary school. School starts at 8:15 and gets out at 3:20. I can see the teachers parking lot from my front door. It is pretty empty at 7:45 and again at 4:15, so I am not sure when all of the "extra hours" come into play.

No way they could be working from home right?

Only teachers work at home? No one else does?

Maybe they do, that's the point. The fact that they spend normal hours at the office doesn't mean they spend normal hours working as you implied.

In reply to SVreX:

The poverty line does not take in account the cost of living. Everything is more expensive here, especially housing. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are also making a lot of assumptions about how I live.

Here you go...

Transition from poverty

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

So, when you say, "The vast majority of people counted as poor today...", you are referring to people living below the poverty line?

That's about 45 million people (14.5%), according to the US Census Bureau.

If that's who you are referring to, then I don't have a lot left to discuss. That would include almost every college student in the US.

We have agreed that the poverty line is not a good standard of measuring poverty, but that is the basis of your position that most people move out of poverty?

Those are not the people support programs should be designed to assist.

So, I guess we agree. The majority of people who live below the poverty line don't stay there for very long.

Now, should we help the poor?

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to SVreX: The poverty line does not take in account the cost of living. Everything is more expensive here, especially housing. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are also making a lot of assumptions about how I live.

I made no assumptions.

I asked you to explain your position.

Yeah, 'poor' is an interesting demographic. During my recent unemplyment, I would say I was poor. I made $888 a month in unemployment benefits. That's it to feed a family of 4, pay rent, utilities and everything else. In my situation, I did not show up on that graph. I wasn't eligible for any programs. I would have been homeless living in a car and still would not have been on that graph.

Your position on poor in this country can get out of poverty if they wanted also has no factual standing. A full time job at minimum wage won't cover rent much less food, clothing and transportation. But all that aside there is something else you are missing. Knowledge. Many poor do not have the knowledge and skills to just pull themselves up and start making a living.

Now as a lefty I will openly admit there people who abuse the system. The system doesn't do anything to get people who have fell on it, to get off, but neither does telling them to go homeless and starve.

Those pie charts are great, thanks.

They make an excellent point of how people will mostly only pay attention to things that support their original point of view.

Pensions make up a QUARTER of the federal outlays? Really?! What does that even mean? As in federal job pensions? I don't think I have ever seen that in a budget chart before. (call me a wee bit suspicious)

The military is over a HALF of the federal budget? Really?! (me thinks you are looking at Discretionary only, which is not exactly the full picture)

I know there are many ways you can look at the budget (e.g. Social Security mostly pays for itself, so it's a big part of the budget, but can't really be used as en example of overspending... yet), but I think we can do better then this people. Lets get a bit more reasonable here!

In reply to The Jeeza:

I find it is often better to exclude data then to provide incorrect or misleading data. There is plenty to back up what I have said, but don't take my word for it. See for yourself. I didn't make any claims that were extraordinary. Just remember that the problem with most data on poverty is that it is just snap shots. Snap shots can tell you the overall numbers, but not what constitutes those numbers. If poverty was at 15% in 2010, and 15% in 2015, don't assume those numbers represent the same people. The same rule applies to the 1% most wealthy.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Here you go... Transition from poverty

Thanks.

It's not a bad article, though it is a little out of date. The most recent reference is 10 years old, and some of the references are nearly 30 years old. Nothing post recession.

But it is specifically about people who have fallen below the poverty line at some point.

That would include me, and I have never received a welfare check of any kind.

I don't think it makes a case at all about how Fairtax impacts the poor.

We agree that the poverty line doesn't define the poor very well. It is an artificial line in the sand used often for political motives.

I would suggest that the majority of people below the poverty line probably neither need assistance, nor will be negatively impacted by Fairtax.

The people of greater concern are the chronically poor (to use your phrase- good distinction). Those are the people who support programs should be designed to assist, and who we should consider if they are being impacted adversely by things like Fairtax.

No offense, but it doesn't bother me at all if a college student has to skimp on his consumption of Ramen noodles.

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to The Jeeza: I find it is often better to exclude data then to provide incorrect or misleading data. There is plenty to back up what I have said, but don't take my word for it. See for yourself. I didn't make any claims that were extraordinary. Just remember that the problem with most data on poverty is that it is just snap shots. Snap shots can tell you the overall numbers, but not what constitutes those numbers. If poverty was at 15% in 2010, and 15% in 2015, don't assume those numbers represent the same people. The same rule applies to the 1% most wealthy.

Ok, but it still represents 15% of the population.

So, if the YMCA serves a primarily transitional community, should we abolish it because those people don't permanently need it?

What is your point?

In reply to aircooled:

You didn't look at the source link did you? There is a very nice drop down menu so you can look at what came from where.

(P.S. I really liked that gif. I sent that one to a friend.)

In reply to SVreX:

My point is that the net of "poor" is cast much wider than needed and portrayed as a much larger problem than it really is. My argument is two fold.

1) Those who genuinely need assistance get less, because we give so much to those that don't need it.

2) Many of those who do not need assistance but do get it, are less likely to pull themselves out of poverty, and more likely to fall deeper into it. They are less likely to learn from their mistakes, and more likely to repeat them.

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to The Jeeza: I find it is often better to exclude data then to provide incorrect or misleading data. There is plenty to back up what I have said, but don't take my word for it. See for yourself. I didn't make any claims that were extraordinary. Just remember that the problem with most data on poverty is that it is just snap shots. Snap shots can tell you the overall numbers, but not what constitutes those numbers. If poverty was at 15% in 2010, and 15% in 2015, don't assume those numbers represent the same people. The same rule applies to the 1% most wealthy.

Absolutely, but I am willing to bet the top 1% percentage changed is less than the poor percentage changed in people. Some people do pick themselves up while others fall down, (I have). The number of 1% that fell to what? A member of the 20% club? There is a difference in having to go back to work and living in a car and working two jobs just to claw your way out of not knowing where you will sleep and where your next meal comes from.

The numbers I posted are not misleading. They are federal government actual budget spending for 2014 category. They, like any other data point, need to be understood to be the most accurate.

As far as fairtax goes...

I actually think a flat tax that is graduated from double the poverty line to triple the poverty line and is adjusted for COL would work.

I am not for sales taxes on food, utilities (electric, water and gas) or the like. The sales taxes in TN were obnoxious and they taxed everything.