US is a 'world leader' in child poverty

[Mertex]

I guess if they all die of starvation, that would end poverty.........

Stupid stupid stupid!! and 1000% liberal. Dear, they died of starvation to the tune of about 120 million under libsoviet interventions but when China switched to Republican capitalism they stopped starving to death and started getting rich.

Do you understand your ABC's now??

Maybe Republican Capitalists in China lie just like the Republican Capitalists in America do.

Wiki:
Exact statistics are disputed, as there have been reports of China's underestimating the poverty rate.

too stupid!! under Republican capitalism all seem to agree they have achieved 7-10% growth per years for 30 years. There is no despute.Wwe know for a fact they now buy more cars than Americans when under liberalism they bought virtually none.

Ignoramus.........not every country figures out their poverty the same way....even the way the US figures poverty, you can't make the statement you have made. So, why don't you move to China, you idiot, if you think they are so much better. The country as a whole does better under a Democratic President......guess what, that's because they support democratic principles. You're still waiting for Raegans' trickle down fortune, aren't you?

Everything, but everything, depends upon how you measure it. Which leads us to last week’s news from Census about the US poverty rate. Of course, the way that Census measures poverty the numbers they reported were entirely correct. But given the distortions in the methods they do use to measure a more realistic estimate of the US poverty rate would be around and about zero.

So, while our definition of poverty has not changed (three times a low-cost food budget for a household in the early 1960s upgraded for inflation) what we’re actually measuring is now completely different. The US poverty numbers today do not measure the number of people still in poverty after the aid given: they measure the number of people in poverty before aid is given.

We really therefore cannot go around comparing the poverty rates of the 1960s with those of today: for the measurement is of very different things. As that first chart points out: the real poverty rate is a great deal lower than the one that Census announced.


What this tells us is that the very poorest of the poor in the US, the bottom 5% (and thus very definitely below that poverty line) are in fact richer than 95% of all Indians. And 85% of all Chinese and 55% of all Brazilians.

Sure, the US is a more unequal country than most others in the OECD, the rich countries’ club. But the real poverty rate, the number of people living in absolute poverty, is around and about zero in the US all the same.
The Correct US Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero - Forbes

 

[Mertex]

You conservatives have no compassion for the poor. .

and you're morally superior or a bigot who wants to help the poor into early graves with compassionate socialism as Stalin and Mao did to the tune of 120 million dead. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin. Do ya punk?

That's your stupid opinion, and I have already shown you that your stupid opinion is wrong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Idiot, you said the working poor pay not taxes.....sales tax is "taxes"...

too stupid it was in the context of discussion on Federal policy!! Even so , they get a virtual free ride at state and local and Federal level. Its a great great deal that is more generous than ever yet it is crippling so the need always grows and grows aas it did in China until they switched to Republican capitalism.Crippling people makes you liberal and stupid. Thinking you are morally superior makes you a bigot!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's your stupid opinion, and I have already shown you that your stupid opinion is wrong.

wrong?? You mean the Chinese got rich under lib soviet welfare and are getting poor now under Republican capitalism!!

See why we say pure ignorance?? What other conclusion is possible??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But the real poverty rate, the number of people living in absolute poverty, is around and about zero in the US all the same.

and???????????? do you have any idea what your point is??

 

[Mertex]

. But the real poverty rate, the number of people living in absolute poverty, is around and about zero in the US all the same.

and???????????? do you have any idea what your point is??

If our poverty is around about zero in the US....how can you claim that China's poverty rate is better?

Have you posted any links to back up your claims? No, you haven't.....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But the real poverty rate, the number of people living in absolute poverty, is around and about zero in the US all the same.

and???????????? do you have any idea what your point is??

If our poverty is around about zero in the US....how can you claim that China's poverty rate is better?

Have you posted any links to back up your claims? No, you haven't.....

1) dear, do you think a guy who paints clown faces and finds it meaningful has the IQ to be here?

2) I didn't say they had a low poverty rate, I said the rate at which they eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty the minute they switched to God like Republican capitalism was unprecidented in all of human history.

3) Therefore, our liberals are stupid and anti- science when in light of that experience they want to go back to lib soviet/chinese intervention here when it slowly starved to death 120 million over there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards

Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.

Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists

you certainly have

if the war on poverty has been successful

there would be less poverty not more

there is no other way to look at it

period

I guess so. If you're an idiot there is not other way to look at it.

But, most intelligent people will be able to deduct that the war on poverty has kept poverty from being even worse. Period.

only an idiot would claim

that a higher percent of people in poverty and a higher percent of people receiving services

is a success story

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.

Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists

you certainly have

if the war on poverty has been successful

there would be less poverty not more

there is no other way to look at it

period

we know how to end poverty. China just ended 40% of the world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism.

Bwahahaha....except Republicans in the United States think that the way to end poverty is to cut all help to the poor.

I guess if they all die of starvation, that would end poverty.........

why are you so untruthful

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Closer and closer we get to "Elysium." Only in the real world there's no orbiting space station to hide on, and no battle droids to protect your rich ass.

A reckoning is coming. Treat people like animals today, the animals might bite you tomorrow.

Fuck off, Fido

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point is that only government knows how to allocate resources and raise children...amiright Commies?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point is that only government knows how to allocate resources and raise children...amiright Commies?

exactly, we need to be regulated but nobody needs to regulate the regulators because they are superior thanks to being selected by us, their inferiors!!

 

[bodecea]

How many children starved in the streets this last year?

NOT ENOUGH.

May I suggest a book you'd love...by Jonathan Swift. "A Modest Proposal".

 

[jasonnfree]

How many children starved in the streets this last year?

NOT ENOUGH.

May I suggest a book you'd love...by Jonathan Swift. "A Modest Proposal".

Books? With fox news as their source of information republicans don't need no stinking books.

 

[jasonnfree]

The point is that only government knows how to allocate resources and raise children...amiright Commies?

exactly, we need to be regulated but nobody needs to regulate the regulators because they are superior thanks to being selected by us, their inferiors!!

The corporations you worship do a pretty good job of screwing things up in spite of regulators. Exxon Valdez disaster, BP "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico. Think of how much damage they would do without regulations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point is that only government knows how to allocate resources and raise children...amiright Commies?

exactly, we need to be regulated but nobody needs to regulate the regulators because they are superior thanks to being selected by us, their inferiors!!

The corporations you worship do a pretty good job of screwing things up in spite of regulators. Exxon Valdez disaster, BP "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico. Think of how much damage they would do without regulations.

You think Exxon would encourage their Captains to dump their oil at sea? You think regulation is the only barrier to that?

 

[Meathead]

America leads the world in crack whores too.

 

[Anathema]

May I suggest a book you'd love...by Jonathan Swift. "A Modest Proposal".

Not my taste in meats but the idea has significant merits to it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The corporations you worship do a pretty good job of screwing things up in spite of regulators. Exxon Valdez disaster, BP "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico. Think of how much damage they would do without regulations.

a liberal is always stupid so will always believe a soviet regulator does more good than harm. A liberal believes like a child believes in Santa Claus.

Our Founders believed in freedom, not regulation. A liberal literally lacks the IQ to understand the country he lives in.

 

[theHawk]

The Numbers Are Staggering: U.S. Is 'World Leader' in Child Poverty



By Paul Buchheit / AlterNet

April 13, 2015

America's wealth grew by 60 percent in the past six years, by over $30 trillion. In approximately the same time, the number of homeless children has also grown by 60 percent.

Financier and CEO Peter Schiff said, "People don’t go hungry in a capitalist economy." The 16 million kids on food stamps know what it's like to go hungry. Perhaps, some in Congress would say, those children should be working. "There is no such thing as a free lunch," insisted Georgia Representative Jack Kingston, even for schoolkids, who should be required to "sweep the floor of the cafeteria" (as theyactually do at a charter school in Texas).

$5 a Day for Food, But Congress Thought it was Too Much.

Nearly half of all food stamp recipients are children, and they averaged about $5 a day for their meals before the 2014 farm bill cut $8.6 billion (over the next ten years) from the food stamp program.

For Every 2 Homeless Children in 2006, There Are Now 3

On a typical frigid night in January, 138,000 children, according to the U.S. Department of Housing, were without a place to call home.

That's about the same number of households that have each increased their wealth by $10 million per yearsince the recession.

The US: Near the Bottom in Education, and Sinking

The U.S. ranks near the bottom of the developed worldin the percentage of 4-year-olds in early childhood education. Early education should be a primary goal for the future, as numerous studies have shown that pre-school helps all children to achieve more and earn more through adulthood, with the most disadvantaged benefiting the most. But we're going in the opposite direction. Head Start was recently hit with the worst cutbacks in its history.

Children's Rights? Not in the U.S.

It's hard to comprehend the thinking of people who cut funding for homeless and hungry children. It may be delusion about trickle-down, it may be indifference to poverty, it may be resentment toward people unable to "make it on their own."

The indifference and resentment and disdain for society reach around the globe. Only two nations still refuse to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: South Sudan and the United States.


Kingston isn't the only Republican to say kids should work in their schools. Remember when Newt Gingrich said they should clean the toilets at school?

I realize they're not fetuses but we cannot let the Republicans get away with cutting food stamps.

Maybe you and any dolt that believes the US has more child poverty than other countries should actually go visit some other countries. I don't see parents sending their kids to Nigeria for a better life.

Not to say there isn't a problem in the US when it comes to poverty and children. But what do you expect after decades of Democrats' War on the Family policies? Single parent families, which usually means single moms, end up in poverty. Just look at the black community, it has the worst deadbeat dad rate than any group. Is it a coincidence that they also have the highest poverty and crime rates too?


Giving them more food stamps isn't going to fix the problem. If black culture is going to continue to worship pimps and thugs, instead of raising their young to respect people(including women) and take responsibility for themselves, they are just going to continue down the same path.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should keep telling minorities that they are victims, and keep them on welfare. Tell them they don't need marriage, that men shouldn't have to take care of their women. That they can keep having kids out of wedlock or chop up their fetuses as it pleases them. I'm sure they'll turn it around with those winning practices.