Progressive Economics = Poverty

[JakeStarkey]

EdwardBaiamonte has done nothing more than give old, tired, and inaccurate far right talking points here.

No, the poor here do not do as well as the European middle class.

Yes, the middle class wealth has been transferred to the wealthy.

Edward, you have a right to your opinions but not to your own facts and definitions.

if true of course you would not be so afraid to say what facts are mistaken and why.

Snap: the trap has caught a far righty by the tongue!

Give your facts to your talking points, then I will tear them apart with the real facts.

Get cracking, Snappy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

in fact USA is easily number one in per capita GDP among major industrial countries. Qater and Norway, for example, are higher because they have vast oil wealth. In Norway they heat the sidewalks in winter.

The USA is highest in GDP plus has 80% of all recent medical patents. We are the source of civilization on earth.

 

[DSGE]

Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

The USA is highest in GDP plus has 80% of all recent medical patents. We are the source of
civilization on earth.

Get over yourself.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Give your facts to your talking points, then I will tear them apart with the real facts.

.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released finalized 2009 per-capita income rankings this week showing Arkansas was 44th with a per-capita income of $32,423, the highest ranking the state has ever had in the 50 years since the federal government began keeping the statistics.

Country Profile and Demographics: Per Capita IncomeApr 16, 2009 ... Luxemburg has the highest per capita income ($55100 in 2003), and East ... France, $32700 (2008 est.) French Polynesia, $18000 (2004 est.) ...



Robert Rector: The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Give your facts to your talking points, then I will tear them apart with the real facts.

.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released finalized 2009 per-capita income rankings this week showing Arkansas was 44th with a per-capita income of $32,423, the highest ranking the state has ever had in the 50 years since the federal government began keeping the statistics.

Country Profile and Demographics: Per Capita IncomeApr 16, 2009 ... Luxemburg has the highest per capita income ($55100 in 2003), and East ... France, $32700 (2008 est.) French Polynesia, $18000 (2004 est.) ...



Robert Rector: The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

That's a start. we need the documentation and citation, first. Second, compare the information to the poor of Nigeria, or Mexico, or Bangladesh. Remember, you have to compare what is "poor" in America with what is "poor" in those countries.

Give it a go.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's a start. we need the documentation and citation, first.

gee, what a surprise it seems you cant tear apart the number as promised and have none of your own! So why bother to be here if you cant participate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's a start. we need the documentation and citation, first.

gee, what a surprise it seems you cant tear apart the number as promised and have none of your own! So why bother to be here if you cant participate?

I can't accept you as the expert on this, edwardbaiamonte, and you know that.

Post the documentation and citation, and if won't do the comparison with documentation, I will be glad do.

Get cracking, snappy.

 

[Toro]

Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

in fact USA is easily number one in per capita GDP among major industrial countries. Qater and Norway, for example, are higher because they have vast oil wealth. In Norway they heat the sidewalks in winter.

The USA is highest in GDP plus has 80% of all recent medical patents. We are the source of civilization on earth.

Actually, that's not true about the medical patents. Coincidentally, I was sitting in on a presentation today where we talked about that. About a decade ago, 72% of all medical patents were in the US. Today it is about 55%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

in fact USA is easily number one in per capita GDP among major industrial countries. Qater and Norway, for example, are higher because they have vast oil wealth. In Norway they heat the sidewalks in winter.

The USA is highest in GDP plus has 80% of all recent medical patents. We are the source of civilization on earth.

Actually, that's not true about the medical patents. Coincidentally, I was sitting in on a presentation today where we talked about that. About a decade ago, 72% of all medical patents were in the US. Today it is about 55%.

I was sitting in a meeting today too, so what?? In any case, we invent most of products that account for the world's standard of living. To compare us to Norway which invented nothing is beyond absurd. It is downright liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's a start. we need the documentation and citation, first.

gee, what a surprise it seems you cant tear apart the number as promised and have none of your own! So why bother to be here if you cant participate?

I can't accept you as the expert on this, edwardbaiamonte, and you know that.

Post the documentation and citation, and if won't do the comparison with documentation, I will be glad do.

If you want to learn about poverty read Robert Rector and get back to us

 

[Toro]

I was sitting in a meeting today too, so what?? In any case, we invent most of products that account for the world's standard of living. To compare us to Norway which invented nothing is beyond absurd. It is downright liberal.

Apparently you weren't sitting in on the same meeting I was, otherwise you wouldn't have said that erroneous statement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I was sitting in a meeting today too, so what?? In any case, we invent most of products that account for the world's standard of living. To compare us to Norway which invented nothing is beyond absurd. It is downright liberal.

Apparently you weren't sitting in on the same meeting I was, otherwise you wouldn't have said that erroneous statement.

of course if it was erroneous you would not be so afraid to offer evidence.

 

[Toro]

I was sitting in a meeting today too, so what?? In any case, we invent most of products that account for the world's standard of living. To compare us to Norway which invented nothing is beyond absurd. It is downright liberal.

Apparently you weren't sitting in on the same meeting I was, otherwise you wouldn't have said that erroneous statement.

of course if it was erroneous you would not be so afraid to offer evidence.

Have you offered any evidence?

Like I said, it was from a presentation by a guy who has been investing in private companies around the world for the past 20 years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Apparently you weren't sitting in on the same meeting I was, otherwise you wouldn't have said that erroneous statement.

of course if it was erroneous you would not be so afraid to offer evidence.

Have you offered any evidence?

Like I said, it was from a presentation by a guy who has been investing in private companies around the world for the past 20 years.

feel free to look it up yourself! I'm good with you admitting that we have 3% of the population and 55% of the medical patents. Norway lives off us yet some fool says they are doing better than us. Go figure.

I will concede that with liberals in charge of the public schools they are the worst in the civilized world now and so patents and most other indicators will be heading straight down hill from here on out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gee, what a surprise it seems you cant tear apart the number as promised and have none of your own! So why bother to be here if you cant participate?

I can't accept you as the expert on this, edwardbaiamonte, and you know that.

Post the documentation and citation, and if won't do the comparison with documentation, I will be glad do.

If you want to learn about poverty read Robert Rector and get back to us

In other words, you have an opinion, and that's cool.

But you fail on your point if you won't substantiate it.

 

[Dragon]

Raw GDP is not a good measure of economic health, because, all else being equal, GDP increases with population. If you have a huge population (like China for example), you can have a very large raw GDP but still have widespread poverty. Per capita GDP isn't perfect either, because it doesn't take distribution of income into consideration, but it's much better than raw GDP.

Here is the ranking of nations by per capita GDP according to three different sources.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the CIA, the U.S. ranks not first but ninth. Setting aside a few oil-rich Middle Eastern countries as anomalous, we fall behind Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Norway.

If you do factor income distribution into the mix, together with disposable-income reductions such as the cost of health insurance and education, we drop considerably further down the list than that.

Those crowing that the U.S. has the best economy in the world are not dealing with facts, because it's not the truth. It used to be, granted. But when it was, we were governed by -- wait for it -- LIBERAL ECONOMICS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didn't comment on Frank's post this time because, although I'm sure he meant to be ironic, he implied a fact: Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

Norway: a country the size of Montana with a homogeneous population less than Brooklyn and Queens. As a nation, it's a rounding error. Without North Sea Crude it would be totally irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't comment on Frank's post this time because, although I'm sure he meant to be ironic, he implied a fact: Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

Norway: a country the size of Montana with a homogeneous population less than Brooklyn and Queens. As a nation, it's a rounding error. Without North Sea Crude it would be totally irrelevant.

None of which supported your original contention.

 

[expat_panama]

...America is stronger and richer than it was in 1812. A shocking realization, I know ...

LOL, you can tell I'm a morning guy; I totally misread your post! You're absolutely right about 30 years ago too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didn't comment on Frank's post this time because, although I'm sure he meant to be ironic, he implied a fact: Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

Norway: a country the size of Montana with a homogeneous population less than Brooklyn and Queens. As a nation, it's a rounding error. Without North Sea Crude it would be totally irrelevant.

None of which supported your original contention.

Norway is a small sample, a rounding error. Look at China, Vietnam, USSR, North Korea, Haiti, East Germany...all Progressive failures