E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOfficials at the U.S. Census Bureau moved Friday to clarify widely reported figures meant to estimate the number of Americans living in poverty.
Dueling Census reports – one based on official poverty estimates that was released just last week and another based on an experimental calculus used in November – differed from one another by 20 percentage points regarding the number of people viewed as living in poverty. The widely reported figure showed that one out of two Americans are in poverty or are low-income. Other Census figures put the figure closer to one out of three Americans.
That’s because the experimental measure, a supplement to the official poverty figures meant to take into account such factors as whether a family is receiving food stamps and how much people pay in taxes, uses a poverty level of $24,343 for a family of four instead of the $21,113 used by the official measure.
Read the original story on NBCLosAngeles.com
In expensive states like California and New York, the supplemental measure classified families making as much as $32,869 as impoverished.
However, Kathleen Short, the Census Bureau economist who spearheaded the supplemental report, said it would be wrong to extrapolate from those numbers that Americans are falling into poverty at greater rates.
In fact, she said, the experimental calculation indicated that poverty among children is actually lower than the official poverty rate shows.
On Thursday, reports in multiple news outlets suggested that people making roughly twice the poverty level under the experimental program were “scraping by” and should be considered low-income.
The Census Bureau does not support that interpretation of the data, Short said.
“Below 200 percent of the poverty threshold is the lower end of the distribution," Short said. "But we would not call it low-income per se.”
A number of news reports on Thursday correctly said that more people fell under the definition of living in poverty under the experimental calculation, but then went on to say that people making twice that would be considered low-income.
However, the practice of using such figures as “150 percent of poverty” or “200 percent of poverty” to determine whether people were of moderate or low income is a practice that grew up around the older, traditional method of identifying poverty, which uses a lower threshold.
More from NBC4 on the Census reports: Assessing poverty
In parts of California under the supplemental approach, a family that owns its own home and earns about $66,000 per year would be earning 200 percent of the poverty level, and not necessarily be considered low-income.
NBC4, relying on figures and analysis from the Los Angeles office of the Census, reported the newer, official poverty figures on Thursday, and questioned reports that used the supplemental figures.
A widely distributed news story by the Associated Press (and published by msnbc.com) relied on the supplemental report.
“We did not misunderstand the data,” AP spokesman Jack Stokes said in an email. "The AP story was vetted by the Census Bureau in Washington.”
However, Short said that she did not agree with the news service’s conclusion that the report showed one out of two Americans to be low-income or impoverished.
Short stressed that the supplemental measure was a work in progress, and that it should not be considered a replacement for the official poverty rate.
The AP's calculations were correct, Short said, "but I’m not agreeing with any adjectives that are placed on being in that category.”
“In fact we stressed the Census Bureau does not have a definition for low income.” Short said
In the supplemental report, "we’re not characterizing what it’s like to be below 200 percent of the poverty line,” Short said. “We don’t have any information to characterize what that would be like.”
Follow NBCLA for the latest LA news, events and entertainment: Twitter: @NBCLA// Facebook: NBCLA
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
One way to reduce poverty is to not spend money on ILLEGAL ALIENS.Another way is for people who can't afford ! kid to not have 6 that I have to pay for.Another way is education,free birth control
The immigration status of people is not part of the criteria for census bureau surveys. Everyone living in the country (not visiting) is counted.
We can also stop exporting subsidized crops that drive mexican farmers out of business and make them NEED to come here in the first place. These are the unaccompanied ones that send money home; not the "whole family sneaking across" crowd. Its a start.
Joyce-2720751
You're right, illegals are the root cause of poverty in the US and it's not:
1)Tax loopholes for the rich
2)People not living within their means
3)Our inadequate education system
4)Government & big business colluding to make $$ by any other means, while everyone else gets shafted
Exactly what "tax loopholes" are there in the tax code that apply to those who happen to be wealthy?? There is no information even collected on tax forms about wealth. Nor are there any I am aware of that apply only to those with high incomes. I have asked this question before, but nobody ever has an answer.
Interesting quote from President Franklin D. Roosevelt about the welfare system.
Peter17.
Nobody answers you because you are ignored. Rightfully so.
20 percentage point difference.
Yeah, I believe ALL GOVERNMENT calculations. ......NEXT.
Sapience,
Another aspect of Roosevelt's quote. He uses the term, relief, not welfare. Relief implies temporary assistance, welfare (today's term) implies a lifestyle. FDR, in his wildest imagination, never thought the New Deal would be so contorted and twisted, to become a way of life for so many.
No one has claimed that yet.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/Warren_Buffett_s_Fellow_Billionaires_Don_t_Bite_on_Million_Dollar_Tax_Challenge
I don't know if there are any loop holes. But if you believe Buffet they are paying less percentage wise.
It's not that tough, folks. Taxing capital gains at 15%: other than the family home (which most families will only have a capital gain on once in their lifetime), the vast majority of stocks and bonds that benefit from the reduced rate for capital gains are owned by the top 10%. If the 90% own stocks and bonds at all, we own them within a retirement plan, where they're already tax-free, so we don't need a special, low capital gains rate. Not to mention the 15% "carried interest" tax rate for most of the income of hedge fund and private equity firm execs.
Most other itemized deductions benefit the rich far more than the middle class and the poor. Mortgage interest: the poor own zero homes; the middle class owns one, relatively modest home; the upper class/rich own multiple, substantially larger homes. Employer-paid benefits: folks who work in fast food and parts of retail get no benefits; middle class folks get a standard package of benefits; top execs get benefit plans that include health club members and, sometimes, country club memberships (so they can get their exercise on the golf course, dontchaknow!) Charitable contributions: there aren't many middle class or poor people with their own private foundations, which often hire a family member at an outrageous salary to "run" the foundation. The list is endless.
The net-net is that the vast majority of the poor and easily half of the middle-class don't have enough tax benefits to make it worth their while even to itemize deductions!
That would be one way to temporarily reduce poverty. Actually illegal aliens are such a small drop in the bucket Joyce. Poverty is automatically created when everybody makes a run for the dining table. The food and the table are limited but the amount of people to be fed isn't. The problem is when the first arrivals eat all the food and leave nothing for the rest. Capitalism is such a system, designed to create entitlements, scarcity, poverty, hunger, etc. Take away from most so that some can float on top of the creme. Census is taken in order to allow the fed to estimate how high the US debt can be set based on a lifetime of income per human. Once the financially stronger get to the feeding table there will not be much left for others. So you see, the illegal aliens you speak of consume some of that food at the table, YES. They do compete with us (very little). But look at the American 1% that take 80% off the table and leave the rest of the 99% Americans scrambling to compete against one another in order to get a piece of the remaining 20% of the cake. So in reality it is Americans vs Americans. Americans eating Americans. Economic Civil War and economic slavery are VERY, VERY, REAL.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
During economic expansion we seem to feel more generous towards one another because we erroneously believe that the good times are here. In reality, it is only the monetary numbers (apparent larger piece of cake) which have grown bigger. The 1% also benefit from the 'apparent' larger monetary numbers (cake) and their income grows disproportionately (gap between rich and poor gets larger). The problem with the 'good times' is that people, in their minds, think that these times will last forever. They don't. Inflation sets in because we have more to spend and value the currency less. More currency purchases less goods. This is how the capitalistic economic framework is controlled by the feds, central banks, too big to fail corporations, and the ubber rich.
White collar crime is actually just as sinister as murder. When people in 'power' steal they are actually condemning a large portion of the population to experience poverty, hunger and death. White collar should be listed and judged in our economic reality and judicial system akin to MURDER. Jet still, it is the chicken thief that gets the worst judicial punishment. Why, because with white collar the theft can not be seen. Just like economic slavery, the chains are invisible.
Mark my words. As the World grows more populous we have seen the end of many political ideals. We still think we live in a 'Democracy'. We don't. Our electoral college system is designed to be highjacked at ANY TIME. Our central banking system and judicial system, as well. Our Military no longer concerns itself with protecting America physically. Today our military force is utilized to expand and protect private and corporate American interests. As the number of people going into poverty increases and discontent sets in we grow closer and closer to the end of capitalism. There is only so much you can push people around until they push back. It is in our best interest that we take the OWS movement seriously. It is a wake up call.
@Joyce: All your points are valid, except there's more to the story. You see, if a whopping 50% of the population makes less than $25000 a year, and the price level hasn't dropped to match it, we have a problem. Unless you have conclusive evidence, you can't say that half the country is poor because they're stupid. I'm sure there are lots of low-income people out there who are poor due to no fault of their own.
@Peter Jacobs: I supported Occupy back when it started, but they have strayed. These days they're little more than anarchists. I think it was the Black Friday protests that screwed them over--instead of supporting the idea of having a massive discount for one day, they decided to go against it. Sure, companies make money off of Black Friday, but they need to realize that they make much less money per item sold. If anything, they should have been protesting the day after to keep the low prices in place.
SPARTAN, I agree. The OWS movement has also bee highjacked by distractors and those wanting to shut them down. I was using OWS as an example of things to come.
Where was all the "poverty" talk in 2006? Perhaps there were no rich people or big corporations in 2006?
Indeed, the middle class consumer, the bulk of the economy, was too busy buying double or triple the house he could really afford.
Where is his disposable income to buy products and services to keep other people employed?
The housing boom proved one thing: The typical American has no concept of debt. A fool and his money are soon parted, and the rich aren't fools.
Anyone who bought or hocked a house for more than twice their household income has no disposable income, and can not participate in a consumer-driven recovery. What were you thinking when you signed the mortgage papers? How could you sacrifice your family's future like that? Did you pass 4th grade math?
Want to fix the problem? End religion. Not only do Churches siphon off about $3 trillion each year in unpaid taxes but most people who attend these freak shows give another 10% of their income. Now if they are making $30,000 a year, which is well under the average, they are paying $3000 of that so the preacher doesn't have to get a freaking job. That alone is worth 3 times what the Tax holiday will put in everyone's pocket. Does that Joel character in Houston really NEED the Astrodome to preach in? Just a few blocks from his huge church are very poor neighborhoods and he is wearing thousand dollar suits in a church owned building worth hundreds of millions of dollars and will leave in a limo and head toward a Gulf Stream. All while the people giving him 10% are trying to pay their bills.
people you meen sheeple
George Carlin said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." Half of our population is born stupider. This is not their fault, it is genetics. It is a good reason that they should not be the people who are reproducing our species (which they are), and it is also the reason that they need the help of the other half -- they really are not bright enough and motivated enough to take care of themselves.
It is up to us to take care of them, unfortunately. However, we have no obligation to be made "equal" with them -- that is a stupid notion. I cannot be made equal to them without major brain surgery or a lobotomy. I have an IQ of 140, well over the IQ of these morons. I have three university diplomas, including a masters degree. I am clearly not equal with the rest of society. I must care for them, that is indeed my moral responsibility, but I cannot and will not be made their equal.
I cannot care for them if I am made their equal. I must have excesses, more than I need, in order to give to others. A system that robs me of my excesses robs me of my ability to help others. It is natural for the distribution of wealth in a society to be unequal, and as the lower half of the bell curve does the reproducing for the future, it guarantees that population inequality will be worse in the future, thus insuring that economic inequality will increase as well. Don't expect me to work to take care of the idiots of our society, if I am not rewarded adequately for my efforts. At some point, I just quit and become needy, waiting for a handout like everybody else. I am not a slave to society just because I am blessed with intelligence and talents. I will not work for the benefit of society as an equal. I must be rewarded for my talents and my efforts, or I will do nothing at all.
Is that the same experimental calculus that lets the CDC know how people have aids even if the people dont know themselves?
Maybe they should use that "experimental calculus" on government spending and/or my taxes (;-)
FOX News Update:
"Let them eat cake."
--and--
"Walmart just rolled back the price of cake in time for Christmas -- problem solved!"
Sounds to me like the government is not living in the real world enough, to even agree on what "poverty level" is. How can they solve a problem they refuse to address, agree on and acknowledge? Is there really any hope for any of us?
i find it confusing when i see 200% thoes numbers just dont look real to me. in the real world 100% is max
200% is the same as 2x.
For example, if you have 2 pies, you have 200% of 1 pie.
My mother and brother both fall within both those poverty descriptions, and yet they both can afford cable TV and internet. If you want people to be alarmed about the number of people living in poverty, then make the poverty description a little more realistic. Seems many of those considered to be living in poverty in our country would be considered wealthy by the same standards in other countries. As long as people compare their financial status to someone who has more money, they will be happy. Try comparing your financial status to the majority of people living in an impoverished country and you just might consider yourself lucky.
I don't mean to offend those in our country who truly are living in poverty, just want to point out the definition of poverty is based upon how much the wealthy make, and not on how much you can afford to buy.
So by that logic if we compare ourselves to say, Somalia, we can feel good about ourselves.
Yes - how dare the poor have cable TV and internet. Just like Rick Santorum said, having to pay $200 a month for prescription drugs is a "blessing". 96% of Americans can afford refrigerators and microwaves - the audacity to whine! Hey, as long as there are starving children in Africa, those families having to get by on $1500 a month should STFU. Our Job Creators(TM) need a 3rd private jet.
it's all a question of priorities ---- i could do fine on $1500 a month, or even less.
noseguard, you cannot be serious. McRob brings up a very valid point. When we define poverty as less than $32k in income in high cost of living regions, or a homeowner earning $65k, it makes most thinking people pretty disgusted with the lies our government tells.
Somalia has no bearing on this.
I do not think of someone in poverty as being able to afford cable tv and internet, they may be lower income, but that is not poverty - not in the US, and not in Somalia.
How about actually using your noggin before posting idiotic nonsense?
^^ It is hard to take a passionate argument like Paul's seriously, when he has to open it with "Noseguard! you cannot be serious!" haha. I wish he had screennames in real life! "Ms Bunny Foo Foo! You are cordially invited to our wedding.."
All but the homeless have access to flush toilets, hot and cold running water and electricity. Just over a century ago, these were all luxuries for the very rich. Cell Phones were only for the very rich only a few decades ago.
Our nations poor have flat screen TV's and internet because technology marches on and free enterprise brings what was once only for the rich available to the rest of us.
Oftentimes it boils down to whether you want to have nice things or a nice place to live. You can't have both. And while housing is cheaper in rural areas (and so they don't need as much money to get by), if you make only $25000 (after taxes) in big cities you're in serious trouble. The monthly rent alone could easily be $1500 or more--that leaves you with about $500 for everything else.
McRob makes a good point. I voluntarily deliver hot meals to 50 low income folks here in my hometown. One middle aged lady lives in a filthy, dilapidated trailer but she's watching her HD flat screen TV and/or playing on the internet every time I go there. The meal I deliver to her provides 50% of her daily caloric intake and it's free. So, she has a roof (although it needs repair), food, clothing (from a local "Helping Hands" ministry), electricity, heat, clean water, a nice TV and cable internet service. Compared to probably 75% of the world's population, she is not, in my opinion, living in abject poverty.
To all the haters that would feel better if low income people were denied internet and cable TV -
If a such a large percentage of people were to suddenly stop receiving (paying for) such services, what do you think that would do to YOUR internet and cable TV bill? It would shoot through the roof!
Cable/satellite/internet/cell phone companies are all big BUSINESSES - big businesses that expect their profits to go UP every quarter, not down.
When they see their profits going down they will naturally raise YOUR bills... Maybe get a government hand out or two, also. They are not going to let the "lazy poor" abandoning them hurt their profits - YOU will be expected to pick up the slack! And you either will pick up the slack, or you will join the others that "don't deserve" internet or cable tv. You are right - people don't deserve things like technology and world access to information (so deemeth you). Now, get thee back to the stone age along with the others!
Heck with service going to less people, more people can be laid off that way. Higher priced services mean the companies could earn just as much, with less customers and less overhead. Yay! But don't ever think that this would be a lazy way to profits, no-no... Only the "poor" are lazy. You know, like all those people willing to lead harder, more uncertain lives just to get cheap gov. hand outs like food stamps and unemployment.
$24,000 or $21,000. A family of four cannot live on that in most states.
If the right-wingers have their way, though, most of us will have to. How else can we afford the rich-people welfare programs so dear to right-wingers' hearts.
Wow! There was a faux pas. I used "right-winger" and "heart" in the same sentence. That was as ludicrous as "compassionate conservative."
There are no "rich people welfare programs". They pay a much higher tax rate than the rest of us and get no credits or deductions not available to us all.
Foreign competition and technology will continue to obsolete middle class jobs, but that is not the Republicans fault.
do not bother posting your ignorant regurgitated fox news crap up here please. Rich people and corporations do not pay their fair share; everyone knows it, and the only people who still sit there and claim they don't are ignorant fools who swallow what their right or left leaning Media tells them without any attempt to check the veracity of the statement. you and all the ignorant sheeple like you do this entire country (as well as the young generations) a huge disservice and it will be thanks to you morons that we all get to live in a corporate controlled police state!
good grief !!!! ------------- and, of course, your opinion is the only important one.
Scott, how must is fair?
You know you're winning when your opponents are left to post idiotic drivel.
If you honestly believe that conservatives want most people to live on $21-$24k, you are sadly misinformed.
Conservatives that I know believe in a rising tide raising all ships. We believe in providing opportunity, not lifetime support.
Certainly there are greedy, heartless, selfish conservatives. There are also many of us who support many others through our own efforts. We also give to worthy causes. We support mission work, and much of what is called progress in business and in the non-profit sector.
And remember folks, many of the 1% are not conservatives. Some rich greedy selfish heartless people are liberals.
Paul F....."Some rich greedy selfish heartless people are liberals."
Yep,it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the following lady and her husband are TRUE PATRIOTIC LIBERAL DEMOCRATS since they live in a HIGHLY CONGESTED LIBERAL AREA:
Exactly my point, the article doesn't say a family of 4, so the blanket guideline is misleading. I agree that a family of 4 making that is impoverished in almost any state. But a single person making that in an area where they can pay $400/mo for rent is not living in poverty. If you want to boldly say that half of our country is impoverished, you should have the stats to back it up. In some areas (IE - NYC) I would say a single person making 30K is probably struggling to put food on the table. Just saying; my mother and brother both meet the poverty guideline, and have cable TV, internet, and are never hungry or in want. It's an alarmist article with the intent to provoke anger in the readers.
I'm so tired of this "fair share" crap. What is enough of a TAX RAISE, because that is what it is regardless of whatever smooth word usage you want to use? Until all of you talking point idiots can come up with actual numbers, aka a plan, all you are is whining that someone was more successful then you and you believe they should be punished for such. You all LITERALLY sound like a bunch of bratty little kids kicking and screaming that it isn't fair. The ignorance, uneducation, of the populous of our country today is amazing! This is why the founding fathers only wanted educated men to vote, not because of the fact that they were chauvinists and racist, which most were, but because they were afraid of a new Rome, which we are teetering on the edge of becoming, nothing more than a mob of the masses that fallow blindly behind some politician who is elected with no position other than "hope and change".
Don--rich people welfare programs? How about Medicaid, CHIP, Leap, housing subsidies, Foodstamps, WIC, the Foodbank, etc. All the working poor are forced to use those welfare programs to get by--but guess what--it is because big rich companies like Wal-Mart pay low wages, take home exhorborrant pay and profits, and inform their employess on where to go to get "welfare benefits" to survive. So who is really benefiting from this form of welfare?
McRob, the article says: "a poverty level of $24,343 for a family of four instead of the $21,113 used by the official measure."
No doubt, back in my single days, $24K, living in a $400/month apartment with a paid for beater car left plenty of spare dollars in my pocket. Now, with a wife and 2 kiddos, $24K per year would be troublesome.
With a level head and responsible spending, a family could survive on $24K/year - if everything went right. However, there would be NO room for any errors, medical bills, major car problems, etc.
If any major expenses were to hit, desperate people do desperate things. I fear some tough times may be ahead as more and more people snap. Single guy or gal with $24K/year, no problems eating raman noodles or dollar meals and making due. Have a hungry or sick kid, and the game changes...
A $3 investment can save about 10k a year. Don't be a fool cover your tool!
Political Prisoner 2012
You raise a good point about the right wingers in America, please allow me to take your thought a bit further.
To define poverty you first must define wealth. If it was left up the right wing extremists in America wealth would be defined by the number slaves they own or the number and size of their palatial estates. If you look at the economic trends of the last 30 years and project them forward another 30 years, you will be shocked. If things don't change soon in 30 years 95% of Americas wealth will be controlled by only 1% of the population. If this trend is allowed to continue in 30 years 99% of American citizens by definition will be living in poverty, This is what happen in the Roman empire and this is exactly what Republican are fighting so hard for today. Make no mistake, the small group of individuals that currently control the Republican Party want to be the ruling class in America and they will do anything to make that happen [think the Koch brothers]. If you doubt this senario then run the numbers on the current economic trends, believe me the results are horrifying.
Enact employee-oriented labor laws that make it difficult and only marginally cost-effective for companies to lay people off. Tax uber-rich people (i.e. those who make more than a million every year) a LOT more (maybe 40-50%?) until the depression is over. End the War on Drugs and use that money to stimulate the economy. Cut military funding to the point where it's only effective as a defensive force (but still the absolute best for this purpose). Greatly reduce all monetary foreign aid. Convince poor people to change certain habits (e.g. reproducing uncontrollably) that landed them in trouble (those who aren't stupid can use it as a reminder).
Such drastic measures are likely to end the depression in less than 4 years. Remember that America hasn't passed the point of no return and a comeback is completely viable at this point.
PP - If the lefty wingers have their way, we all will have to live in poverty, but we all will be happy, Harry Reid told us so.
And your name - Political Prisoner 2012! The lefty's are in power, is that what you mean?
Bill from Oregon
For a troll you making this to easy. Lefty Wingers ???? Wow, that's a bit over the top BILL. Lets remember this article is about poverty. With that thought in mind If people like you are foolish enough to vote for Republicans in 2012 you'll be voting to push your own children and grand children into poverty. Anyone that cannot see that this is direction the right wing in America is leading us definitely needs to go to Lenses Crafters for glasses. BTW BILL your beloved right wing Republican/Tea Party is in control of congress right now not the 'leftys' and boy are they doing a bang up job of screwing the country over.
! out of 2 families live in poverty! BUT 1 in 5 children are living in poverty That means, roughly 4 out of 5 families either have no children or the children in those families are not as poverty stricken as thier parents? That's some math trick!!
Whatever the true poverty rate, what is left unsaid is that there is as much wealth in the US as there was prior to the economic collapse. So why is there such a dramatic rise in poverty when the wealth is the same?
It has all flowed uphill. For example, one family, the Waltons of Walmart, have as much net worth as the bottom 100,000,000 Americans. Four hundred families control half of the wealth of the US. They are worth as much as the remaining 330,000,000 Americans.
You bring up a good point.
What I have to wonder is in the 3 years Obama has been President, all of the poverty numbers have gotten worse. Poverty and joblessness among blacks is at catastrophic levels. Food stamp recipients are at an all time high. More wealth is flowing to fewer people than ever.
He has accomplished nothing in this area except to encourage the flow of money through his stimulus and the budget to fewer people who have just gotten richer - from green companies to the unions to the health care industry. He is like the anti-Obama in reality.
He is either dishonest to the core, or very ineffective.
In reference to your last sentence......Mr. Obama is BOTH.
well hes a politician so thats you first question. yes he is dishonest to the core i don know. second question yes he is mostly ineffective congress saw to that
Oh, what a relief. It's really only 1 in 3 people. . . .
Get a grip, people. 33% of Americans considered low income is absolutely shameful!
I notice that this story, like all about poverty, fail to mention one very important detail. The "official" federal poverty rates are based on calculations made in the early 1960's, based on spending patterns of the late 1950's. Needless to say, these official poverty rates are essentially meaningless, since both the cost of living and spending patterns have changed enormously in the last 50 some years.
These figures are going to be based on whatever will benefit whoever does the figuring; in this case the STATE. Its the same problem with our official inflation rates.
check out SHADOWSTATS DOT COM for some interesting numbers.
Funny how it works tha way JEM. nice and convenient for them is it not?
Government statistics are garbage. They an be skewed any way to prove a point. If you're poor, you know it. No one has to tell you.
SPOT ON ! Optomyst.
Loopholes for the rich, like deducting charity contrubutions to the poor and needy. Help to hospitals, and other community endovours. Ya take away the deductions and let them stop donating, so they can pay more money into the corrupted government that will make it to causes that dont deserve it.
They never tell you why they pay less, but one of the reasons is above.
Illegals are stealing money our of our pockets and foreign countries are taking it as fast as we can give it.
Richard,
Do you have any statistical evidence supporting your contention that "Illegals are stealing money our of our pockets and foreign countries are taking it as fast as we can give it."I'll come back later to be enlightened by your scholarly demonstration of the objective evidence you amassed before you expressed with such certitude the alleged facts you are advancing.
If I come back and you haven't posted your scholarly findings, I'll know you're a fraudulent windbag with fierce opinions, but nothing more.
Michael - do you think that the millions of Mexicans who have come here illegally do so just for those great grape picking jobs and our beaches? C'mon, richard may be a bit over the top, but honestly, if you live in CA, AZ, TX or many other southern states, you can see with your own eyes at the grocery store on the 1st or 2nd and at the banks, check cashing stores and the hospitals just how overrun we are with non-English speaking folks who are cashing government checks, using food stamps, and using medical services at no cost to them.
Ignoring the reality of our government failing to properly enforce citizenship law for fear of offending has created an epidemic. Hide behind the excuse of not being willing to accept the truth because you don't have a study to prove something to you does not make you smart, it just makes you part of the problem.
Paul F
I think what you may be seeing is not illegals cashing government checks but their children who are American citizens. The problem is with the socialist programs; not the illegals.
The US/Mexican border has been largely open since the US and Mexico became separate countries. Why is this a problem now? The answer is socialism. Get rid of the socialism and the issues with illegals will go away.
If you are worried about illegals taking your job, check out the site TAKEOURJOBS DOT ORG and they will line you up with the type of work normally done by illegals.
One in two Americans living in poverty. Or is it one in three? No matter what number you choose, it's truly shameful that the United States of America, the supposedly greatest nation in the world, has sunk to such a level.
And to top it all off, it seems our government can't even decide what poverty is! Well, let me give them a hand. I say if you qualify for food stamps, you're living in poverty. For a family of one that's a gross household income of $14,160 or less per year; for a family of four it's a gross income of $29,064 or less per year.
Of course those in power in government and the corporate world aren't among the 1 in 2 or 1 in 3, and I don't think they are truly concerned with the number of Americans living in poverty as long as they aren't living there with them.
Look at what we value in this country and you'll see why the number living in poverty is rising and will continue to rise.
The former CEO of Avon who was just fired from her position is still making $1 milion a year serving on the Avon Board of Directors. What value can she possibly offer that makes her worth $1 million a year? And no offense, it's Avon-- a company that sells make-up, perfumes, and face creams.
Look at our basketball and football players, and all our other sports heroes. Players with multi-million dollar contracts whose sole purpose is to entertain, much the same as actors and actresses who are also highly paid for their entertainment value.
Then we have the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, and others cut from the same mold whose contributions to the betterment of this world are woefully nil yet who receive large sums in return.
How to begin.
First, poverty is not $14k per year, nor $29k per year. What you are describing is low income. Poverty is no food, no clothing, no income, desperation, living on the streets. This re-defining words is destroying the ability to communicate.
There is nothing particularly encouraging about the Avon CEO earning $1 mil, nor the non-profit United Way CEO earning $1 million+. But, and this is an important but, companies must decide how to compensate their upper level executives based on what they think the executive can do to add value. Same with athletes. If LeBron James can earn $45 million annually, it is because he is earning the team owner more than that because LeBron plays on that team. Without LeBron, that team earns considerably less.
Taking shots at high earners will not lift anyone from poverty, nor from being poor.
Giving more money to the government will also not lift anyone from poverty, nor from being poor. If it did, the Trillions we have spent as a nation to lift the poor from poverty would have worked by now. But instead, we have created a permanent dependent class.
We need honest solutions, not class warfare. Our public educational system is a failure, as are most of our government poverty programs. We need new ideas with some reality applied.
Given just how bad our public education system really is, it is time to seriously consider eliminating our minimum wage laws and repealing child labor laws. Lets bring back the child apprenticeship programs of old like the one Ben Franklin had as a child.
Eliminate minimum wage laws - yeah, that'd sure help lower poverty. Sheesh.
Repealing child labor laws - wow, my kid or yours could be an "apprentice" dishwasher, floor mopper, manure shoveler, or something just as great with his zero-education.
This ain't the days of Ben Franklin - this is the 21st Century.
Why should one segment of the population expect another segment of the population to live like they're in the 1700's?
Actually, Wren, as bad as it sounds, your 33% low income makes sense. That would leave 66% in the middle income range, totaling the "99%" and the "1%" rich. Even according to the Occupy people, the rich are still not the majority of people.
One of these days the "informed" population here in America will wake up to the propaganda of the American media. If even a third of the population is living in poverty....it is too much. Congress.....stop giving our money away to countries that would blow us up given the right button to push. There are too many honest people out there needing and wanting work. Corporate America....stop sending jobs overseas just to make a buck.....you are killing our country. I did my time in Nam....thanks for throwing the bottles and bricks when WE came home !!!! This poverty article is pure B. S. but you A$$'s believe everything you read. Look around you....they are on the streets....children going to school with no home to come back to. The poor can't be heard......because we refuse to see them and we refuse to hear them. Merry Christmas.
It's pure and simple, because of our SH^&TY government and the useless dirt bag MOFO politicians that we elect, if we don't rise up against these scumbags and do something instead of being led like cows to a slaughter house, then were DOOMED its as simple as that.
More government double talk, pencil whipping, back peddling, and bull$hit. You can bet your a$$ whoever let the truth slip out in the first place will be looking for a job with the rest of us come Monday. On and by the way 57reshas, we passed "doomed" about 14 trillion dollars and a Patriot Act ago. And the term is sheep not cows.
Whatever the problem, the existing government leaders are not capable of getting the job done. If they are over 40, kick them out of Congress. Democrats, Republicans it does not matter - they are all corrupt.
You're absolutely right magnets, they're crooks, thieves, and liars to the very last man woman, both sides of the aisle and they ALL need to GO.
Vote RON PAUL if he makes the ballot.
Vote LIBERTARIAN if he does not.
Vote LIBERTARIAN for all other offices but president.
It is useless to replace one corrupt party with another.
To bad we can only clean 1/3 out of office at a time leaves 2/3 to spoil the rest if all goes well 2016 is when its all cleaned you can only hope
thats okay, Monsanto's genetically modified population control (roundup ready corn and soy) is designed to resemble food and the poor people seem to love it, it's cheap and you dont know you are dying until it's to late. It sterilizes the men and makes the women miscarry more often than not. Children that do get born to parents consuming mass quatities of GMO's tend to be uncontrollable, bouncing off the walls 24/7.Other than their nauseating body odor, oozing pustuals, and sand paper like hair the subjects, I mean consumers dont even realize they are being slowly exterminated.
All of us in corporate America want to wish you and yours a very merry genetically modified christmas, we have went to great lengths to make sure everything on your plate has Roundup Weed Killer (agent orange) in every bite, we built it right in so you dont have to spray it on your food before eating it. MMMMMM cant you just taste that Roundup now!!!
A little old but it is a real "reality check".. I thnik it helps define what we are all talking about... the 30,000' view if you will.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q
Yes, it's the 'bacon on the cob' that's bringing us all down...