Thread: 1 In 7 In U.S. Lives Below Poverty Line

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

The point of the story is that things happen to a family that is beyond the potential help that can be provided from extended family and friends and to be honest, Steve, I do not know what the good answer is. What I do know is that there are many hardworking people here that were never a drain on the system and with the current economic climate as it is. The chances for digging out of a hole like that is slim to none.

If we just sit by and watch these people fall, what good does it do our society? What happens when 40% of the country is impoverished? 50%? 60%? One trend that cannot be denied is that the upper 1% of this country sees massive increases in their income from year to year while the median income remains essentially flat or decreases in an environment where the cost of living, especially in major metropolitan areas is rising faster and each year.

How do we sustain American society like this?

Sounds like your brother-in-law needs to move in with your parents or his until things get better. Tough situation, sorry for the loss of your sister, but sounds like he's made bad decision upon bad decision which now the consequences are coming home to roost.

Or you could just get a gun and go try and rob those rich people you demonize as the problem. At least then you'll be honest about trying to steal their property.

Oh and why is the cost of living rising higher in major metropolitan areas faster every year? It's all those deadbeats you've subsidized over the years who have reproduced like bunnies creating more and more those who work have to support. Looks like a good idea now doesn't it?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

They don't actually mean anything.

The Hell they don't.

They mean that working oneself out of poverty is possible.

I know libs don't really want that message to get out, though, so I understand your position that such "anecdotal heartwarmers" don't mean anything...

Steve, try to get past your hatred for a moment. We're talking about people trying to get ahead and taking action to do so, not whether or not they deserve to benefit from a particular action they have taken. Your response really dodges the issue (something I know you hate in others' responses), so it's reasonable to ask you to try again.

I didn't doge a thing.

The issue of illegal immigration is a separate one. The "action" they take to try to better themselves is an illegal one. They deserve nothing from us...

Originally Posted by 9aces

Sounds like your brother-in-law needs to move in with your parents or his until things get better. Tough situation, sorry for the loss of your sister, but sounds like he's made bad decision upon bad decision which now the consequences are coming home to roost.

Or you could just get a gun and go try and rob those rich people you demonize as the problem. At least then you'll be honest about trying to steal their property.

Oh and why is the cost of living rising higher in major metropolitan areas faster every year? It's all those deadbeats you've subsidized over the years who have reproduced like bunnies creating more and more those who work have to support. Looks like a good idea now doesn't it?

No. Major metropolitan areas are where the jobs are so the outlying suburbs become very desirable to families looking to be close to good paying job opportunities which casues the price of real estate and subsequently, property taxes to go up. Along with that comes more demand for things like oil and energy which make basic needs like food and medical services become more expensive.

Originally Posted by Steve

The Hell they don't.

They mean that working oneself out of poverty is possible.

I know libs don't really want that message to get out, though, so I understand your position that such "anecdotal heartwarmers" don't mean anything...

Please. We're talking about reasonable possibility. Winning Powerball can possibly pull someone out of poverty - should the poor be buying Powerball tickets?

I mean, it's possible, right?

I didn't doge a thing.

The issue of illegal immigration is a separate one. The "action" they take to try to better themselves is an illegal one. They deserve nothing from us...

No, it's the same thing. I'm not talking about what immigrants do or don't deserve. What I'm talking about is people trying to better themselves. But, you're dodging because you're afraid of what the answers might mean.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

No. Major metropolitan areas are where the jobs are so the outlying suburbs become very desirable to families looking to be close to good paying job opportunities which casues the price of real estate and subsequently, property taxes to go up. Along with that comes more demand for things like oil and energy which make basic needs like food and medical services become more expensive.

Really? If that is the case then why is every major city in the country broke and have been for a long time? They're only surviving on handouts from the federal government.

If that's where the jobs and opportunity are, then they should be having excess revenue to help out those poor folks in the smaller cities.

But they don't do they?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Really? If that is the case then why is every major city in the country broke and have been for a long time? They're only surviving on handouts from the federal government.

If that's where the jobs and opportunity are, then they should be having excess revenue to help out those poor folks in the smaller cities.

But they don't do they?

They are going broke because all the good working class jobs have been slowly getting sent over seas or are being taken by illegal immigrants. They are going broke because these people, who were once getting by fine on their own started slipping down a slope that got steeper and steeper as time goes on. Lose a job. Go on unemployment for a while; get another job that pays less; costs of living goes up; salary is not going up enough to cover it; get a 2nd part-time job to offset the extra expenses after savings have been expended; family gets strained because one or both parents are not around enough; tragedy strikes.....primary breadwinner had accident and can no longer work; lose house; kids become criminals; hello homeless shelter, food stamps and welfare.

Pretty much the story of it. Any working class or middle class family can see it all go away just with a short series of negative events. I have seen this happen too many times in my life...and I sad before I do not know what the good answer is.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

The Gilded Age sounds similiar to the trends we are seeing here, over the last few years. If relativity is taken into account. All that we need to make it complete are the Republicans, doing away with SS, etc. The rich will love em for their policies, while the average guy, no, probably not at all. It's funny in a way how we seem to repeat shit, but I ain't laughing.

What people don't seem to realize is that without the progressive reforms of Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive taxation of Franklin Roosevelt that there would have been socialist revolutions.

It's just like, in a communist country if the country doesn't try to become more moderate and democratic, a right-wing dictator will end up in charge.

If a capitalist country doesn't act with some humanity and humility, violence will occur and good rarely comes from violence.

It was a divine accident that the American Revolution didn't end up like the French Revolution. Extremism rarely defends liberty, usually it only destroys it. We shouldn't tempt fate and risk letting problems get so huge and people feel so little hope that they make things even worst just in the search of something different, of some control over their lives.

In the Christian sense, we all have a duty to make each others lives less miserable because it is easier to resist temptation when you have hope in your life. The one who walks to their own salvation ignoring the fates of others is likely to find a nasty surprise waiting for them on the other side.

It's not like you have to be dogmatically adherent to the text, to give up all riches. Men like Bill Gates may still be fabulously wealthy, but they've not only just handed off stuff they could do without to the poor they've invested thought and time and a voice towards helping people.

People need to remember that neither material charity nor spiritual conversion of others are the end all be all of it, that to a large extent it's caring about other people helping other people not in scale but in terms of the impact you have on a life, even a single life. Hope and compassion are priceless.

Maybe we could take care of everyone's physical needs through a technocracy or some other system like that, but that would allow our humanity to atrophy. I think a middleclass society is the optimum because, while there are still rich and poor, the gulf is not so very vast. When people are comfortably middleclass they can afford to be compassionate to other people, they can develop a social conscience, they can afford to care about injustice.

People being middleclass and comfortable helped them to realize "hey, it's not right that certain groups aren't allowed to vote". The poor are too busy competing for what little there is with other groups to be able to afford much compassion and the rich are so far removed from the rest of humanity that it is not necessarily even their fault that they can't feel much compassion, can't empathize with others.

And it applies to so many different things. The wives of the rich might have become adventuresses or daring socialites, but the wives of the middleclass can become educated and become equal partners in their relationships. Children need not forsake education to keep their families going, the elderly need not be a burden on their children.

Most of all, the middleclass are far enough from the halls of power to not be brought into the racket but are far enough from the bottom to have the time, energy, and education to study the world and to say meaningful things about the problems in society. You are completely right in saying that a middleclass majority is a necessity for a free and open society.


And yes, as a practical matter, while as a damn impractically individualistic Leftist I don't believe in the national interest outweighing the individual's rights, from a practical standpoint your observation about globalization is correct.

If there was a war right now our industrial capacity is stuck in a million places. But it's not just about outsourcing. Think how fragile our internal systems are too. There used to be farms or large food corporation warehouses near each community. These days with information technology and (previously) cheap gas the food you eat comes from far far away and the grocery store doesn't restock until the last minute.

If someone disrupted the databanks, or if the roads were jammed, then people hundreds and hundreds of miles away would suffer. A fragile interconnecting system based on centralizing production where it most profitable and shipping it out at the last minute to avoid storage costs.


People used to have more of a say in their survival, it used to be a given that there were farmers and mechanics in your community. There used to be communities. But success caused us all to leave the cities and towns and move out into suburbs and isolate ourselves from our fellow man.

People used to own actual property, a plot of land, AND have a real community - these days people have no real property but no real community either.


The difference between you and I is that whereas you might want to turn back the clock, I don't think that is an option so I think we have to adapt and develop new methods for survival, to fix the faults in our society as they become apparent.

Originally Posted by Steve

The Hell they don't.

They mean that working oneself out of poverty is possible.

I know libs don't really want that message to get out, though, so I understand your position that such "anecdotal heartwarmers" don't mean anything...



I didn't doge a thing.

The issue of illegal immigration is a separate one. The "action" they take to try to better themselves is an illegal one. They deserve nothing from us...

I would just say that 40 years ago working oneself out of poverty was so much easier to do. That was the era that if you finished H.S. you could, if you persisted, get a job at a local factory that was the ladder out of poverty. I know many people who did this, using factory work and construction work, which were both well paid jobs. The people who were raised in poverty had an opportunity there that is sure as hell gone today. It was the engines that gave one an opportuntity at the American Dream.

The fact that gov't policy changed in regards to industry has such tremendous consequences for the poor, who no longer have those engines in place to utilize. This is the real crime IMO. Of course the right side screams that the poor should just get some college degrees, and the problem would be solved. That is ludicrous, because it ASSUMES that all people are capable of degrees. I got news for you, people are not born with the same intellectual capacities, and yes many folks just don't have the brains for higher education. In the past, we took care of these folks, with our industry, as that was the way the poor could change their poverty. But what happens when you let that go elsewhere chasing cheap labor and lax environment laws? Well, you doom these poor folks to a life of the gov't dole, which serves no one well. No Brutus, the fault is not in our stars but in our gov't economic policy. Policy that was changed in order that a few might reap huge rewards, at the demise of the many.

Capitalism just for the sake of Capitalism is the most destructive force in modern society. And yet, the Republicans worship at that alter. At least FDR, Truman and Ike used Capitalism as an engine to help enrich all, instead of the top dogs. And they were all great men due to this. But this mindset somewhere along the line changed, and it probably started with Reagen, although I am not sure. Perhaps it really started with Nixon who tried to open up China which eventually led to most consumer goods being made there. But regardless of when it started, it was started, and our own working people and poor have suffered ever since.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Please. We're talking about reasonable possibility. Winning Powerball can possibly pull someone out of poverty - should the poor be buying Powerball tickets?

I mean, it's possible, right?

Well, that's a pretty stupid argument.

Substitute the word "realistic" for the word "possible".

Working oneself out of poverty is a realistic goal, but only for those who aren't afraid to work to do it...

But, you're dodging because you're afraid of what the answers might mean.

Fine, if you want to include illegal scumbag aliens in this discussion? Lets.

They should get nothing. Period. They don't deserve it. Plenty of immigrants have worked themselves out of poverty, and they have done it legally. Those who choose to do it illegally should get nothing.

I guess you can look at it as admirable that they want to better their lives if you want, and if you have no appreciation for our laws or our borders, however, everything is trumped by the fact that they choose to do it illegally. Nothing should be given to them.

Maybe if we weren't supporting illegal scumbag aliens, there would be more money to pass around to, you know, citizens...

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I would just say that 40 years ago working oneself out of poverty was so much easier to do.

Golly gee, it's not "easy".

Well, that's just too fuckin' bad...

Originally Posted by Federalitarian

What people don't seem to realize is that without the progressive reforms of Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive taxation of Franklin Roosevelt that there would have been socialist revolutions.

It's just like, in a communist country if the country doesn't try to become more moderate and democratic, a right-wing dictator will end up in charge.

If a capitalist country doesn't act with some humanity and humility, violence will occur and good rarely comes from violence.

It was a divine accident that the American Revolution didn't end up like the French Revolution. Extremism rarely defends liberty, usually it only destroys it. We shouldn't tempt fate and risk letting problems get so huge and people feel so little hope that they make things even worst just in the search of something different, of some control over their lives.

In the Christian sense, we all have a duty to make each others lives less miserable because it is easier to resist temptation when you have hope in your life. The one who walks to their own salvation ignoring the fates of others is likely to find a nasty surprise waiting for them on the other side.

It's not like you have to be dogmatically adherent to the text, to give up all riches. Men like Bill Gates may still be fabulously wealthy, but they've not only just handed off stuff they could do without to the poor they've invested thought and time and a voice towards helping people.

People need to remember that neither material charity nor spiritual conversion of others are the end all be all of it, that to a large extent it's caring about other people helping other people not in scale but in terms of the impact you have on a life, even a single life. Hope and compassion are priceless.

Maybe we could take care of everyone's physical needs through a technocracy or some other system like that, but that would allow our humanity to atrophy. I think a middleclass society is the optimum because, while there are still rich and poor, the gulf is not so very vast. When people are comfortably middleclass they can afford to be compassionate to other people, they can develop a social conscience, they can afford to care about injustice.

People being middleclass and comfortable helped them to realize "hey, it's not right that certain groups aren't allowed to vote". The poor are too busy competing for what little there is with other groups to be able to afford much compassion and the rich are so far removed from the rest of humanity that it is not necessarily even their fault that they can't feel much compassion, can't empathize with others.

And it applies to so many different things. The wives of the rich might have become adventuresses or daring socialites, but the wives of the middleclass can become educated and become equal partners in their relationships. Children need not forsake education to keep their families going, the elderly need not be a burden on their children.

Most of all, the middleclass are far enough from the halls of power to not be brought into the racket but are far enough from the bottom to have the time, energy, and education to study the world and to say meaningful things about the problems in society. You are completely right in saying that a middleclass majority is a necessity for a free and open society.


And yes, as a practical matter, while as a damn impractically individualistic Leftist I don't believe in the national interest outweighing the individual's rights, from a practical standpoint your observation about globalization is correct.

If there was a war right now our industrial capacity is stuck in a million places. But it's not just about outsourcing. Think how fragile our internal systems are too. There used to be farms or large food corporation warehouses near each community. These days with information technology and (previously) cheap gas the food you eat comes from far far away and the grocery store doesn't restock until the last minute.

If someone disrupted the databanks, or if the roads were jammed, then people hundreds and hundreds of miles away would suffer. A fragile interconnecting system based on centralizing production where it most profitable and shipping it out at the last minute to avoid storage costs.


People used to have more of a say in their survival, it used to be a given that there were farmers and mechanics in your community. There used to be communities. But success caused us all to leave the cities and towns and move out into suburbs and isolate ourselves from our fellow man.

People used to own actual property, a plot of land, AND have a real community - these days people have no real property but no real community either.


The difference between you and I is that whereas you might want to turn back the clock, I don't think that is an option so I think we have to adapt and develop new methods for survival, to fix the faults in our society as they become apparent.

Yes, that is the difference I think basically. I do want to turn back the clock and get back to gov't policy that protected American industry. I mean, we are just talking about a change in policy here. I do not see why a saner economic policy would not be beneficial, given what we are looking at now with the economy.

Whenever the largest consumer Nation in the world, does not try to make at least what it consumes, huge amounts of real working people are affected in dire ways. I mean, it's a no brainer to me. Now, if we had never made our own goods, I would then have no model to refer to, but I grew up in a Nation that had American Made on most products, even the ones sold at Walmart! I can still recall when Walmart had big signs up, back in the mid 70's that said in great big letters....American Made. And while this was happening you could see it in the lives of people around me, the working lower middle class folks that were thriving, owning their own homes, etc. Today, I see so many poor people in the place of those factory and construction workers. The working lower middle class over time and free trade turned into the poor. Now, someone can throw stats at me, but my own eyes is what I trust, above any stat. I know my community, I can see. And I also know this same thing is happening or has happened all over this land, it's not just my own area.

So yes, I do want to backtrack, to policy that kept industry at home. While this may be too much to ask of our current leaders, it is not too much to ask of future leaders. I am just afraid we will get to the point that the question is not even asked anymore! We take for granted that our industry is forever gone, while not understanding the whys of that. The only reason is it forever gone is because our leaders will insure that it is. My grandpa told me when I was a lad that "can't" died a long time ago. So when someone tells me we "can't", it really means we "won't". And I think that is the honest to god's truth of the matter.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I would just say that 40 years ago working oneself out of poverty was so much easier to do. That was the era that if you finished H.S. you could, if you persisted, get a job at a local factory that was the ladder out of poverty. I know many people who did this, using factory work and construction work, which were both well paid jobs. The people who were raised in poverty had an opportunity there that is sure as hell gone today. It was the engines that gave one an opportuntity at the American Dream.

The fact that gov't policy changed in regards to industry has such tremendous consequences for the poor, who no longer have those engines in place to utilize. This is the real crime IMO. Of course the right side screams that the poor should just get some college degrees, and the problem would be solved. That is ludicrous, because it ASSUMES that all people are capable of degrees. I got news for you, people are not born with the same intellectual capacities, and yes many folks just don't have the brains for higher education. In the past, we took care of these folks, with our industry, as that was the way the poor could change their poverty. But what happens when you let that go elsewhere chasing cheap labor and lax environment laws? Well, you doom these poor folks to a life of the gov't dole, which serves no one well. No Brutus, the fault is not in our stars but in our gov't economic policy. Policy that was changed in order that a few might reap huge rewards, at the demise of the many.

Capitalism just for the sake of Capitalism is the most destructive force in modern society. And yet, the Republicans worship at that alter. At least FDR, Truman and Ike used Capitalism as an engine to help enrich all, instead of the top dogs. And they were all great men due to this. But this mindset somewhere along the line changed, and it probably started with Reagen, although I am not sure. Perhaps it really started with Nixon who tried to open up China which eventually led to most consumer goods being made there. But regardless of when it started, it was started, and our own working people and poor have suffered ever since.

Funny that you mention "40 years ago". One of the biggest things that happened back then was the formation of the modern "nanny state". Johnson's "Great Society" made excuses for failure an acceptable alternative to success and guess what....people began to decide that success was overrated...evil in fact. The "value" of a person was suddenly determined by government fiat rather than actual productivity and we stepped over the cliff edge. Equal opportunity was cast aside in favor of a quest for equal results and we began our downward spiral.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I would just say that 40 years ago working oneself out of poverty was so much easier to do. That was the era that if you finished H.S. you could, if you persisted, get a job at a local factory that was the ladder out of poverty. I know many people who did this, using factory work and construction work, which were both well paid jobs. The people who were raised in poverty had an opportunity there that is sure as hell gone today. It was the engines that gave one an opportuntity at the American Dream.

How many Jack in-the Box's were there 40 years ago. Instead of working in an assembly line, flip burgers in an assembly line.

The fact that gov't policy changed in regards to industry has such tremendous consequences for the poor, who no longer have those engines in place to utilize. This is the real crime IMO. Of course the right side screams that the poor should just get some college degrees, and the problem would be solved. That is ludicrous, because it ASSUMES that all people are capable of degrees. I got news for you, people are not born with the same intellectual capacities, and yes many folks just don't have the brains for higher education. In the past, we took care of these folks, with our industry, as that was the way the poor could change their poverty. But what happens when you let that go elsewhere chasing cheap labor and lax environment laws? Well, you doom these poor folks to a life of the gov't dole, which serves no one well. No Brutus, the fault is not in our stars but in our gov't economic policy. Policy that was changed in order that a few might reap huge rewards, at the demise of the many.

How many illegals are working in this country that don't have a collage degree, they seem to do fine.

Capitalism just for the sake of Capitalism is the most destructive force in modern society. And yet, the Republicans worship at that alter. At least FDR, Truman and Ike used Capitalism as an engine to help enrich all, instead of the top dogs. And they were all great men due to this. But this mindset somewhere along the line changed, and it probably started with Reagen, although I am not sure. Perhaps it really started with Nixon who tried to open up China which eventually led to most consumer goods being made there. But regardless of when it started, it was started, and our own working people and poor have suffered ever since.

You know, the world changes every day, businesses have to change to meet new demands, labor has to change to meet new demands. You want the steel mills to continue on for every. They are not and the labor force has to adjust.

Think about this from the late 70's your same 40 years, the technology age was on fire. Everything from software, to hardware, the Internet, cell phones, etc etc etc. This industry exploded with new jobs that never existed 40 years ago, can you even imagine how many jobs have been created by this explosion. Oh and lets not forget the wealth that this industry has brought. Microsoft has made more millionaires than any company in the world, and produced high paying jobs. Ever hear of Silicon Valley. I mean think Dell, Intel, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Meg Whitman, the list goes on and on and on of people that advanced this technology and deserve every dime they made.

So the steel mill days are over, but you can still flip burgers an take on the illegals for a living.