More Children Live In Poverty Now Then During 2008 Recession

a reply to: fshrrex

The "Fed" needs to be restructured to fit the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Like you said, the "fed" reserve is private, that violates the whole premise of we the people.

What to do, I dunno. Thanks for putting it like it is.

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: Urantia1111


Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Life???

I'm both, depending on the circumstances. I'll decide on a case-by-case basis who lives or dies.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: fshrrex

More Children Live In Poverty Now Then During 2008 Recession

Sadly, the same people that caused the problem in 2008 in the government and private sector hi finance are still in charge.

That's true and the same people who really can't afford to be having more kids are still doing exactly that.
Don't forget Obama brought in thousands from Central America and for what reason nobody ever said.

Cheap labor?

Really and truly the middle class is getting screwed from the top and the bottom.

I live below the bottom so I'm okay. When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

Thanks for the chuckle…

Not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK we have a laughable and frankly offensive system called "relative poverty". It means that if everyone is £10,000 better off but some are £100,000 better off, then, relatively speaking, more people are in poverty. Even though they ar emuch better off than they were.

I live in abject poverty according to my Government .....


edit: the only way in which it is possible to end poverty, under this nasty, disingenuous, system in Britain, is every single person earns exactly the same income.

ditto here in england. a sad state of affairs indeed the tories, recently faced with a reported rise in child poverty, responded as tories do. they re-calculated what counts as 'poverty'. instantly those in 'poverty' were no longer so, at least statistically. left, right or centre, the sum total is the same. they don't care about us. writ large.

a reply to: fshrrex

You sure of this??

However, the numbers are from 2013, and Speer said the outcome may be different now that the unemployment rate has lowered to 5.3%; it was 7.5% in June 2013.

Do you think it has anything to do with the government not allowing extensions anymore on unemployment? I think that number rose if the real stats where released...I want to see the number of people who had to turn to welfare instead of unemployment because their UC benefits ran out before they could find work...I think all the numbers are going up and there is no way to prove it with the "stats" and where they get them from...

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

But how many were in poverty? really?

As I say, I live in abject poverty according to my government. Yes I own my own business, I run a charity, I drink a bottle of wine every night and I post on ATS (how can anyone in poverty afford 3 laptops, a tablet and broadband?)

For the record I earned less than £6,000 last year.

But I am NOT in poverty. And those who imply I am are insulting me.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Start with me...alive or dead??!??

a reply to: StoutBroux


"...In 2013, the U.S. Department of Human and Health Service's official poverty line was $23,624 for a family with two adults and two children."

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: fshrrex
www.usatoday.com...

The report examined data from several federal agencies ranging from 2008 to 2013 to assess state-by-state trends of 16 factors of children's well-being, including economics, education, health and family and community. It found that one in four children — a total of 18.7 million kids — lived in low-income households in 2013; low-income families were defined as those who use more than 30% of their pre-tax income for housing.

However, the numbers are from 2013, and Speer said the outcome may be different now that the unemployment rate has lowered to 5.3%; it was 7.5% in June 2013.  Speer said more employed parents would naturally lead to fewer impoverished kids, but she doubted it would change the number of children in low-income neighborhoods.

The report also examined racial disparities between children living in low-income households. Black, Hispanic and American Indian children were more than twice as likely to live in poverty than white children, the report said.

What is poverty exactly? The low income children with cell phones? American Indian children living in subsidized housing and living on food SNAP? Because I want to know exactly what poverty is.

At some point during this administration, they redefined poverty to be a percentage of the national average income or something like that so that there would always be a certain number of people living in poverty, too.

If the income disparity has become great enough to skew the average so that more people live below the average than at it, then you would expect to see more kids living below the poverty line if it operates as a percentage.

a reply to: ketsuko

As they did in Britain.

And as I said above, it means that unless EVERYONE earns the same money, there will always be some in poverty, and, as a small minority get richer, the majority will get, relatively, poorer, regardless of how well off in real terms they are. Eventuallym millionaires will be living in poverty ....

A very socialist - and disingenuous - policy.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: ketsuko

As they did in Britain.

And as I said above, it means that unless EVERYONE earns the same money, there will always be some in poverty, and, as a small minority get richer, the majority will get, relatively, poorer, regardless of how well off in real terms they are. Eventuallym millionaires will be living in poverty ....

A very socialist - and disingenuous - policy.

Not necessarily the same money. The rich needs to cut down on their spending that doesn't even help the public like having a mansion by himself. Heck they could turn their mansion into a living hotel if they wanted. You can look at 1900 era where a lot of people lived in one home smaller than a mansion. Higher a bit more people. Gov needs to lower taxation on homes. People need to stop going to rich restaurants, more like rich restaurant should reduce the cost of their food. People need the right to farm on their own homes.

The Mansions can even make a farm that could feed 20 people if they wanted with their land. Heck, if I own a mansion I'd be inviting my friends to live with me just so as long they don't make a mess and grow a backyard farm(plants, no animals). Then we wouldn't have to care about buying vegetables and those who can't grow food wouldn't have to fight in the groceries for food.
Wala, food will become cheaper again. Poverty becomes less. Those who want to stay on the streets, you can't force them and do anything about it. Leave them be.

Food sales are based on the amount that you can sell. If market is over stocked it becomes cheap. If not, it will cost more. There was a time when Mansions were for big families and small homes for small families. Now it is just down right opposite!

I would love to rent a living space if a rich guy offers it in his mansion that doesn't cost as high as the hotels or apartment markets.

www.cnbc.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Bingo!

a reply to: makemap

But here's the thing - If the guy living over on his island has tons of money, does it actually make you poor or only make you poor by comparison? By using a percentage to figure poverty, it makes you poor by comparison even if you are well off enough to feed and cloth and shelter yourself well enough that you don't have to worry about where your next meal comes from or how you're going to put a coat on your kids' backs.

But when the government politician comes around and tells that in spite of that reality, you are living in poverty and points his fingers at that man on the island, suddenly what seemed like a decent enough living you were content with evaporates and you want a piece of that guy's pie ... It's all about the greed. And they use it to buy your vote.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well said. Poverty means drastically different things depending on which country you live in. In most cases, "poor" people in a 1st world country are much better off than the middle class of 3rd world countries.

originally posted by: Danke Poverty means drastically different things depending on which country you live in.

that's a very interesting observation one man's slum might be a palace to another.
indeed, in what circumstances would any of us consider ourselves to be in 'poverty'?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: fshrrex
www.usatoday.com...

The report examined data from several federal agencies ranging from 2008 to 2013 to assess state-by-state trends of 16 factors of children's well-being, including economics, education, health and family and community. It found that one in four children — a total of 18.7 million kids — lived in low-income households in 2013; low-income families were defined as those who use more than 30% of their pre-tax income for housing.

However, the numbers are from 2013, and Speer said the outcome may be different now that the unemployment rate has lowered to 5.3%; it was 7.5% in June 2013.  Speer said more employed parents would naturally lead to fewer impoverished kids, but she doubted it would change the number of children in low-income neighborhoods.

The report also examined racial disparities between children living in low-income households. Black, Hispanic and American Indian children were more than twice as likely to live in poverty than white children, the report said.

What is poverty exactly? The low income children with cell phones? American Indian children living in subsidized housing and living on food SNAP? Because I want to know exactly what poverty is.

At some point during this administration, they redefined poverty to be a percentage of the national average income or something like that so that there would always be a certain number of people living in poverty, too.

If the income disparity has become great enough to skew the average so that more people live below the average than at it, then you would expect to see more kids living below the poverty line if it operates as a percentage.

Like I said, what is poverty? Does it mean hungry? Starving? Homeless? Below a certain income? Oh, I get it, below a certain income......which is subsidized by our tax dollars. Um Hnmm. I get it. I want that tooo. Really, I dooooo.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: ketsuko

As they did in Britain.

And as I said above, it means that unless EVERYONE earns the same money, there will always be some in poverty, and, as a small minority get richer, the majority will get, relatively, poorer, regardless of how well off in real terms they are. Eventuallym millionaires will be living in poverty ....

A very socialist - and disingenuous - policy.

Bravo, the new levelers are the same as the old. They can only level down.



"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-Winston Churchill

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: fshrrex

It shouldn't be a surprise that underprivileged children are worse off under this administration.

When the popular ethos deems productivity sacrilegious, fewer people are productive.

We're more productive than ever, where do you get your information?

Clearly those children are impoverished because they haven't taken enough responsability. I'm talking about personal responsability here folks. They need to pull up their bootstraps and work longer hours. I think they need to work 40 hours a week and then 40 hours a week of school at night.

I'm tired of hearing excuses from the nations poorest people. I make good money so obviously these kids should be able to do it too. There are no problems only these kids are problems. More responsability.

That's right!