Democrats versus Republicans

[donrr1]

Source: Brandeis University Date: October 29, 2005

More on:

Nutrition

Hunger In America Rises By 43 Percent Over Last Five Years

Science Daily — Hunger in American households has risen by 43 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data released today. The analysis, completed by the Center on Hunger and Poverty at Brandeis University, shows that more than 7 million people have joined the ranks of the hungry since 1999.

The USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, says that 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children. That figure is up from 31 million Americans in 1999.

Don

[PBzeer]

On it's face, an alarming statistic. Without some context though, as to why, what they define as hunger and food insecurity, it doesn't tell us much.

Do you post it as a statement, a question, an indictiment?

[camaraderie]

TDW...can we possibly both be correct on this??
Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains. But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.


All of the above is true and supports exactly what you've said about a widening gap...but the gap is at the 99th + percentile of income...less than 1 million workers including celebrities, sports figures and yes massively overpaid CEO's and other senior execs.


I'm with you on the bad things done to "the rest of us" in the name of higher short term stock option values by that group. It used to be that "the rest of us" were the factory workers and the guys on the shop floor but now it is at least more inclusive. Hows that for diversity training!! We all get to be out of jobs without pensions or health benefits while Bangalore guys answer the phone and tell you how to fix your made in China PC so you can go to Monster.com and look for a job at Wal-mart.


Now you have to understand that the bottom 30% of income earners pay NO income taxes at all here and the bottom 50% pay just 3 percent!! Did you know that?





So what is happening now is that the NON 99th percentile WAGE EARNERS making up the other 49% of the income distribution curve...i.e. sucessful working people ...are paying 60% of the total. Now the mass of people in the bottom 50% of income distribution is working and NOT paying income taxes and they don't want to go on the dole any more than you or I (except for the low-lifes that exist in any society)....but they do want free medical care, and all sorts of subsidized other stuff and as they grow since as you say...the poor are getting poorer (not true here)...the definition keeps changing and the NUMBERS of "non-taxpayers" are growing...so they can increasingly vote themselves more benefits. In some ways we are becoming more like Europe...with a very tiny elite/rich and a great leveling of the rest where hard work does not pay off as well and there is a growing majority of people who feel entitled to stuff that was in fact earned by others. All this... while most of the hard working top-half earners face sharply rising costs for their kids education and health care and less job security and are ineligible for any of the entitlement programs they are paying for.
Sorry for the long rant TDW....but I didn't see any other way of putting my prior brief comment in context.
In summary....I hate the "entitlement" masses and how they will destroy the free enterprise and self reliance that has made my country great if given their way. I also hate not the super rich....but those super rich who did it by destroying the social fabric of this country by running thier companies for personal gain without a thought to the welfare of their employees or the country that made their pampered lives possible. Here's a little chart that illustrates that "nagging little problem"


If you took this one back to 1960 it would be about 35-1 as I recall.
Bummer!

[donrr1]

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

How Should Ohio Spend its Welfare Surplus?

By: Marc Kilmer, posted May 9, 2006
Ohio has $700 million and it doesn’t know how to spend it. It’s a rare situation – a pot of money politicians haven’t divvied up yet. But because of federal welfare rules, that is exactly what Ohio is facing. While there are a variety of ideas being proposed on how to spend the money, it is important that our elected officials use this money in a way that will empower individuals and ensure there is a direct connection between the money being spent and moving an individual off welfare.
Ohio has this $700 million surplus because of the 1996 law reforming welfare. When the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) law was passed, it ended the decades-old entitlement to welfare and replaced it with a system providing a yearly lump sum to states which they use to provide cash assistance to individuals in poverty. If the state does not use all of the federal funds for direct cash payments, it has a surplus. On the other hand, if its payments are in excess of the money a state receives from the federal government, it must make up the deficit.

There seems to be enough information in my last three posts to show a cause and effect.
Ohio isn't the only state with a surplus. In response to your last edit PB, I was posting the information because there was discussion about it on the thread. I guess that would fall under the statement category.


Don

[PBzeer]

Don't forget though, the Income Tax is not just a means of generating revenue, it's also a political tool. Some think it's PRIMARILY a political tool.

[PBzeer]

I must be dense, because I don't see where you're going with this donrr1. With the meat in your sandwich being hunger, are you implying that by taking people off of welfare, it is increasing hunger? Which would in turn indicate that they were better off on welfare as it was prior to reform.

[sailingdog]

Very ironic considering the current epidemic of obesity in the US...

[tdw]

Originally Posted by donrr1

August 22, 2006

• Welfare Reform, Ten Years Later
  Today is the 10th anniversary of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which reformed the federal welfare system. The law established time limits and work requirements for welfare recipients, and gave states much more authority to establish other requirements and restrictions. Since the reform, the number of people receiving welfare has dropped dramatically in most states.
  
  Public Agenda polls found that people resented the values of the old welfare system more than its cost. The public -- including whites, African Americans and people from welfare families -- said the old welfare system was abused and encouraged unwed pregnancy. Large majorities -- including those in welfare families -- believed the old system needed change. The vast majority of those who know about welfare reform say it works well because of the work requirement.

• Don

And the number of homeless has gone through the roof.

[donrr1]

So it would seem PB. It would also seem that I am pissing you off somehow, so I'll bow out.

Don

[PBzeer]

Far from it donrr1, your comments don't bother me in the least. You can't have an intelligent discussion otherwise. I'm simply trying to understand the point you are trying to make. When I don't understand something or someone, I ask for clarification. I hardly think that qualifies as being "somehow pissed off".