I guess that's lights out for the Cain campaign

The poverty rate increased slightly in 2008-09. Those were recession years, Mr. Economy. That's par for the course. It appears that you also wanted the poverty rate to increase for people OVER the age of 65, too, but it just didn't happen. Why do hate people over 65?

You only consider them "dumb requests" because you don't seem to be able to answer them. They're simple questions really, but for the simple-minded I can see where they would pose challenges. If you feel they're too challenging then I won't expect a valid answer from you.

 

Quoting a person or injecting a famous quote into a conversation isn't really "bringing up" that person. For instance, if we were to discuss your political thinking, I could refer to the following quote simply as an indicator of your "thinking" without actually discussing the person who said it (other than, of course, to give them credit for the quote):

"I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking."
- Franklin Roosevelt

See how that works?

 

How *poof*ing dumb are you? You ask me to define what poor is? THAT is *poof*ing dumb no matter how hard you try to squirm away from it. Then again, maybe you don't know, as I've witnessed many wealthy people become clueless when poverty enters the discussion. Maybe you're like them, maybe you really have no clue... maybe you've never witnessed poverty yourself, or experienced it. I have. I know what poor is, I know what poverty is, and I know a dumb*** *poof* when I see one. You wanna know what poor is? I have an easy enough solution for you. Drop everything and start walking. Leave all your money behind and never go back. Spend a decade like that and then you'll have an idea. Dumb***.

And, again... look at your chart... since 1970 the general rule is poverty increases when a Republican President is in charge and decreases when a Democratic president is in charge EXCEPT for this current economy...it was too big a collapse to right the Republican wrong easily this time.

 

What is a *poof*? Please define. You've still offered no definition of "poor" either. If you''d ever offer a valid argument, there's a possibility that some people might agree with you. But, I don't think you've offered a valid argument since you've been on this forum. When you go off on your vitriolic tangents, it really doesn't sway people in favor of your position. Poor thing.

 

I guess I am *poof*ing dumb also. How about explaining it to me.

BTW, other exceptions to your "increases when a Republican President is in charge and decreases when a Democratic president is in charge" would be Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter.

 

If you legitimately can't define what it means to be poor, maybe these questions can help you understand:

Have you ever not had enough to eat because you couldn't afford to buy enough food?

Have you ever gone without a warm shelter because the heating or electricity bill couldn't be paid in time and they shut off the power (or you ran out of fuel and couldn't afford to buy more)? *Note that you may or may not need to be in a home for this question, as it also applies to having to live in a tent or other temporary structure.*

Have you ever refrained from going to the hospital, despite having medical issues that needed attention, because you couldn't afford the bill?

Have you ever refrained from going to the dentist, despite having teeth that are rotting away and falling out, because you can't afford the bill?

Have you ever gone without a vehicle because you couldn't afford the costs?

If you have ever been in any of these circumstances then you should have an idea on what it means to be poor.

Now, if you're gonna continue to play stupid, then I'm gonna continue to tell you to *poof* your comments.

 

If you don't know what poor is then yeah, you are dumb... or possibly you've never experienced it in your life. If that is the case, that you have never experienced it in your life, then it's not really your fault for being ignorant... but being a *poof* over the question of what defines poor is all on you, since there isn't a need to be a *poof*... you just choose to be one.

As for the chart:

From what I remember of the chart, the "new norm" starts around 1970 to the present with relatively minor rises and falls during that period (compared to the years before 1970(ish)). During the Reagan years the rate increased. During the Clinton years it decreased. During the Bush (and Obama) years it's increased again. As Coin pointed out, the increase from 2008 can be attributed to the massive collapse of the economy (caused by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. IMO) and I don't attribute the increase to Obama because of that.

You should know better than to insult the poor... it's in bad taste... for the most part, it's not their fault they are poor... it's mostly due to circumstances. If you've been lucky enough to never experience it, or lucky enough to crawl your way out of it, then you should show more compassion for those not so damn lucky. So, what's it going to be? Are we gonna continue this little hateful dance we're in or are you two going to stop being *poofs* about what defines a poor person? I'm giving you that choice, but be warned, I will not stop disproving inaccurate perceptions of the lives (and deaths) of poor people. Not ever.

 

Yes, I've been in some of those situations. But, I never considered myself poor. There is always someone worse off than me out there, no matter my station in life. But, please don't take pity on me for having gone through that in my life because I certainly don't. Remember, you're only as rich as you want to be.

 

"You're only as rich as you want to be." Tell that to someone dying from starvation or exposure to the elements... I'm sure they'd appreciate the sentiment. (<---sarcasm)

While I live in a family that is lower middle-class, I know I'm only a step or two away from being truely poor... an accident here or an expense there... an unknown, unpredictable event... all could force me to become truely poor, as circumstances have done for a number of people in recent years... people who had good incomes but lost their jobs and burned through their meager savings... some have kids who are forced to wash themselves in restrooms and beg for assistance on the streets.

Poor people exist everywhere, though they do most of their suffering in silence, away from prying eyes. As such, they are easily overlooked... even the idea of poor people is apparently being scoffed at here, and elsewhere I'm sure. But just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there... it's more a case of indifference to their suffering. Here in America, the ranks of the truely poor are smaller than in the under-developed World, but they are here... tucked under bridges, in forests, in abandoned homes, in sewers, etc. It's here in America, and to suggest otherwise is appalling.

 

What the *poof* are you jawing about? You commented about what the entire chart shows, but now you are limiting it to only your selected group. Have it your way, if you want. Just don't expect anyone else to follow or agree with your analysis of half the data. BTW, you missed the 2 biggest stumbling blocks for the economy even during your selected time - Carter and 9-11.

As for the other part of your rant, just what are you talking about. Is discussing Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter "insulting to the poor" or is it just trying to expand your knowledge base to the entire chart?

 

It's almost like if you pretend that you can't define being poor, it doesn't exist. In reality, there are any number of ways to define poor people. You can use the government method which defines poverty as a family of 4 making $21,954 or less. You use a dictionary definition such having a low net worth. Or you could define being poor from a wise perspective such as Confucius did when he said, "In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." Or lastly, you can define being poor comically such as, "Poor is having too much month at the end of your money."
What I have noticed most often by the RW'ers here is that they are satisfied to argue over the definition of poor because that seems to alleviate the problem of having to acknowledge that there are actually poor people at all. I think that their usual tactic of quibbling over one definition of what poor constitutes has run its course and it time for them to drop the facade and address the problem of the growing poverty in this country or simply admit that they don't really give a damn about those living in poverty.

 

Who is suggesting otherwise? I simply asked for you're definition of "poor", but if you don't want to provide it, so be it. You make it sound as if I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Far from it. In fact, VERY far from it. I could have chosen to remain at a low income level, but instead I got up off my IQLESS and decided I wanted a better life. I worked for very hard for it and have received a measure of success.

Of course, this is just personal anecdotal evidence and doesn't mean much. Not everyone will experience the same results. But, they might if they try. For those unable to work, there are shelters, charities, food banks, etc. all across America. For those who are mentally challenged, there are homes to take care of them.

So, please define "poor" and tell me how many people in America are dying from it. You said their numbers are increasing, after all. I would like to know how many deaths are caused by "being poor", but not another reason (alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, etc.).

 

At one time or another, I fit all your "definitions" of "poor". Would you have considered me poor then?

 

I grew up poor. In a housing project in Brooklyn. Ate meat once a week and that was with hamburger helper. Parents at times would skip meals so their would be food for the kids. We were not the only ones. Their was no family car for many years and I wore hand me downs with patches when lucky.
Now days, speaking of NYC, the poor have air condition subsidized housing, heat in the winter, x-boxes, free medical. Scholarships to college if they get some sort of grades. Free Breakfast, Lunch, and afternoon snack if they go to the free afterschool program. Free summer day schools and or camps, etc. and I see the same thing in Florida.

For the most part, the poor really are not so poor in this nation. They live mightly well right now.
For the most part, the middle class is complaining for they have less then they did ten years ago in many respects but they are still for the most part living great.
For the most part, the upper middle class is living at a grand level and do not even notice the recession.
For the most part, the rich are getting richer.

To misuse Dickens from a tale of two cities since this is the Christmas season and we are all thinking about the scrooges in our lives.

It is not the best of times but it is far from the worst of times.

 

At one time, you were probably poor.

Is this yet another attempt to focus on defining the poor and going no further? Seems sort of silly if so. The much bigger issue of course is why is poverty growing and what can we do about it?

 

I'm still not sure what is wrong with creating operational definitions. Everyone has a different concept of "poor" or "rich," so why not create a definition for the purpose of the discussion?

 

Doesn't that graph also show that the poverty rate coming out of this recession is actually better than the poverty rate coming out of the 1990/91 recession? Today's poverty rate is also less than it was coming out of the 1981/82 recession, btw. Seems pretty decent since this recession was worse than both of those by quite a bit. And if you believe that we will return to normal after this recession like we have the previous ones, there doesn't seem too much to worry about as far as poverty rates.

I do not believe that we will return anywhere close to normal, so I think there is a lot of reason to worry, but I am probably just a pessimist.

 

There you go, being a dumb*** again. That's your choice.

 

DUMB ***... go *poof* yourself.

 

Yeah, I'd agree that many of the poor in this country have better lives than in other countries, and many more opportunities. Most of the poor I know live in homes, with running water and heat,. But I have witnessed people living in worse conditions. I knew one woman who was brought to a hospital and she died there, and one guy I knew died of exposure one Winter. And there are many more like that here and everywhere in America, in every city, and they live relatively unnoticed. What angers me is, as Moen put it, the intentional bs (like debating what poor is) for whatever reason. It's insulting to treat their lives as bs, they are (for the most part) good people down on their luck.