Let the Good Times Roll: 1 Million More Americans in Poverty in 2004

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Those are the governments estimations of the cost of living. Do you deny that your dollar goes twice as far in Jacksonville than in Norfolk?

Well, it's nice that the military is socialist minded, but the rest of the government isn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Rents are actually going down a bit due to the housing boom.

Not so I've noticed.

[Patroklos]

Well, it's nice that the military is socialist minded, but the rest of the government isn't.

All I am really saying is that the current tool is bogus, and any person with a rudamentray understanding of statistics or even basic math can see why.

And it isn't so much that it is making some people look poor when they aren't that should make Ted see the light, but the fact that it makes alot of people officially NOT poor when they really are.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Then prove it, so far all you can say is "15,000 is poor because I said so," Even though 15,000 in San Fansico is 30,000-60,000 in Cimarron NM. It is simple math Ted, and you have failed to understand it.

It's so simple you can't decide if your number is 30K or 60K. But it's simple math.

In terms you can understand, 15K is universal suckage. Because I said so, and because most people with common sense who have actually had life experience say so.

Your callous disregard for peoples actual situation is sick.

Nice reverse projection there.


Thanks

[Ted Striker]

By the way, here's a nice number I just found.

Since 2000, the number of people below the poverty line has increased by 5 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line_in_the_United_States

They probably all live in rural Ohio where 15K in San Francsico dollars actually equals 100K OR 1 million dollars!!! So they don't really count!!!

[Saras]

Playa has become surreally daft. Sad, really.

[Ted Striker]

[Mrs. Tuberski]

If any one wants to talk about basic math Try this out for size 15000 a year. Try dividibg that by 26 the number of bi weekly pay checks a person will get in that year. thats 1150 month my rent in texas was 650 for a two bedroom apartment i had 3 kids and no husband. Thats 500 left for electricity whch averaged 120 a month thats with I had a 200 dollar car paymment on a clunker my phone was 30 bucks I didnt have cable. I paid a lady down the way to care for the kidsnot a day care . That leaves 150 a month to feed 3 kids and my self. But wait I have not paid for all my day care, my car insurance, or got the kids school supplies clothes shoes. If you think 150 a month for food for three kids is enough your wrong. Oh but wait I havent paid for the insurance preuims on my kids medical Oh gee but i see how one can live on 15000 a year

[Mrs. Tuberski]

My figures didnt even include the funds for monthly medications my kid needed for asthma and or god for bid they caught a cold.

[Patroklos]

It's so simple you can't decide if your number is 30K or 60K. But it's simple math

Since you have proven incapable of understanding math, I see little reason to replicate it here after doing if for you on the last page. Incidently, providing the lower figure was to make you look less retarded, alas to no avail.

Since 2000, the number of people below the poverty line has increased by 5 million people.

What was the population increase in the same year?

And from you own damn source.

In the United States, official statistics on poverty and the official poverty line are kept by the US Census Bureau. Other federal and state agencies, however, use other definitions of poverty, for example, to do means testing for welfare programs.

Because your line makes no damn sense and isn't good for any practical purpose. Why not read your source next time.

Teds self pwnage

hey probably all live in rural Ohio where 15K in San Francsico dollars actually equals 100K OR 1 million dollars!!! So they don't really count!!!

And the five million people making 16,000 dollars living in San Diego, Boston, and Hartford paying three times the housing costs are just cozy middle class suburbanites right? Becasue your magic line says so right?

This is really getting ugly for you, just bow out now before you hurt youself.

My figures didnt even include the funds for monthly medications my kid needed for asthma and or god for bid they caught a cold.

What does any of that have to do with whether the cost of living is dramatically different in different parts of the country?

We are not debating whether your personal experiance makes your poor, I already said that the actual characteristics of your life is what counts. Ted thinks it doesn't matter, and rather you are just the sum of a number he made up in his head, or in this case a number he agrees with.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

i wasnt arguing the cost of living, I have been however arguing that 15000 a year might be fineif you are on person but it doesnt go very far if you are 3 or more people. My personal experiences have only to do with i am not nor will i be the last to be living like that. Most foks now days live pay check to pay check. Most paychecks dont even cover the monthly expenses. So hence you find your self getting ur utilities cut off or no food at the end of the month or having to do with out medications necessary to live. I am sure the economists that come up with these figures would disagree that most folks live a comfortable life. When indeed they do not. Maybe i am misunderstanding what you are saying but i dont think so. Those folks tryin to raise a family on 14000 a year are usually going with out a few items in their lives. Mostly healthhcare and food.

[Patroklos]

So hence you find your self getting ur utilities cut off or no food at the end of the month or having to do with out medications necessary to live.

Those people are far beyond being below the poverty line. Are you suggesting that the majority of people below the poverty line are living without power and water, starving to death, and dieing of a quickly deteriorating illness?

No, they are people with just enough to get the basic needs of life or better for the most part. If not, then the figure would be decreasing for obvious reasons. Obvioulsy you did not starve to death in those years Mrs. Tub. To me the poor, the ones that deserve the government help and charity, are the ones who can't meet those basics. Now we can argue all day about what those basics are, but it does not make picking $15,000 and applying it 250,000,000 people over hundresds of thousands of square miles a good way of identifying who is whithout.

And this is why nobody uses the poverty line for anything but trolling internet threads, especially government agencies and charities.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

No i didnt starve i already said i went to the catholic charties and food banks. I think that number you are arguing about is based on the folks that are making that amount and is applied as a basis to each household that isnt making it on that amount. Not by what you or i deem what the basics for each indvidual are. You insist on stating the basics are the bare minium to survive, Well look at what those are, food shelter toilteries for some working parents child care medications are just a top of the list I do find it easier to have elecricity to survive so yes that fals in ur basics. Now granted beans and rice will feed ur family but i can guarantee they are not getting the proper nutrition they need.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


What was the population increase in the same year?

Doesn't matter, look at the percentage, because, it was up too. Nice try though.


Here's your problem:

Even with cost of living adjustments factored in, those factors were available in the past 5 years as well. They don't matter. They've been in place but have no affect on the overall trend line, which has been, more people, in sheer numbers, and as a percentage, are in poverty.

Bottom line: More people at the lower end of the income scale have less money than they did before. If you want to classify them as "poor" or "unpoor," it doesn't change that trend.

That's the entire purpose of the Poverty Rate, to identify the overall trend.

Thanks champ.

[Patroklos]

Even with cost of living adjustments factored in, those factors were available in the past 5 years as well.They've been in place but have no affect on the overall trend line, which has been, more people, in sheer numbers, and as a percentage, are in poverty.

And were not used, and are still not being used, to create a poverty line. The poverty line is a straight 15,000 everywhere with no modifiers. By the very nature of what the poverty line currently is, they are not factored in. Why are defending something that so grossly misrepresents a problem you obviously care about?

Bottom line: More people at the lower end of the income scale have less money than they did before. If you want to classify them as "poor" or "unpoor," it doesn't change that trend.

Which is not your position, but it is a less then humble attempt to say you were wrong without actually doing so.

Welcome to the light