• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Poor in America

Cal

Well-known member
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=



August 27, 2007, 7:00 a.m.

Poor Politics
Edwards’s poverty “plague” examined.

By Robert Rector


The Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty in America tomorrow. The report will show, as it has in recent years that around 37 million people live in official poverty. Presidential candidate John Edwards, who hopes to lead the nation in a new crusade against poverty, will, no doubt, seek to reap much publicity from the report.

In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a “plague” which forces 37 million Americans to live in “terrible” circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing “one in eight” Americans lack “enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” caught in a daily “struggle with incredible poverty.”

However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as “poor,” reveals that America’s poverty “plague” may not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends.

If being “poor” means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America’s 37 million official “poor” people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

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.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced.

Another important factor boosting poverty in the U.S. is our broken immigration system which imports hundreds of thousands of additional poor people each year from abroad through both legal and illegal immigration channels. One quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by Census is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. Immigrants tend to be poor because they have very low education levels. A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree.

As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

— Robert Rector is senior research fellow in domestic-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation.
 

nr

Well-known member
A very interesting report, Cal. " If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty," is a fact well publicized. Just yesterday Mr nr and I met an example of how materialism threatens the lives of the poor, perhaps not such a problem in earlier decades. She was a mother of 2 and expecting her third child all by a common-law husband . We met her at an empowerment center for the homeless or almost homeless. I asked her why they hadn't married. My concern was if he left her she'd have a harder time getting child support. She seemed oblivious to the many factors in her life that often lead to abandonment, said they hadn't married because he wanted a B-I-G wedding with all the frills which they couldn't afford (and also handily gets him off the hook) and her dream was to honeymoon in Las Vegas.

Maybe they'll make it. I hope they do. She seemed like a sincere and pleasant young gal, clean, trying to be organized and a good mother, but inside me I wanted to yell, wake up!

The men who came into the center yesterday fell into the partially employed alchoholics who had lost their drivers licenses which made getting to jobs difficult. The article didn't mention substance abuse which is surprising considering its grip on the nation's poor. I wonder why?

Other than that it made many good points regarding a complex problem.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I thought this was a good article to help combat it. But of course, those that make over $200,000 year probably will throw a fit for that 100 Billion tax cut they are getting in 2008..........

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half

By The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty

April 25, 2007





Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.

The Center for American Progress last year convened a diverse group of national experts and leaders to examine the causes and consequences of poverty in America and make recommendations for national action. In this report, our Task Force on Poverty calls for a national goal of cutting poverty in half in the next 10 years and proposes a strategy to reach the goal.

Our nation has seen periods of dramatic poverty reduction at times when near-full employment was combined with sound federal and state policies, motivated individual initiative, supportive civic involvement, and sustained national commitment. In the last six years, however, our nation has moved in the opposite direction. The number of poor Americans has grown by five million, while inequality has reached historic high levels.

Consider the following facts:

One in eight Americans now lives in poverty. A family of four is considered poor if the family’s income is below $19,971—a bar far below what most people believe a family needs to get by. Still, using this measure, 12.6 percent of all Americans were poor in 2005, and more than 90 million people (31 percent of all Americans) had incomes below 200 percent of federal poverty thresholds.
Millions of Americans will spend at least one year in poverty at some point in their lives. One third of all Americans will experience poverty within a 13-year period. In that period, one in 10 Americans are poor for most of the time, and one in 20 are poor for 10 or more years.
Poverty in the United States is far higher than in many other developed nations. At the turn of the 21st century, the United States ranked 24th among 25 countries when measuring the share of the population below 50 percent of median income.
Inequality has reached record highs. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19 percent) since 1929. At the same time, the poorest 20 percent of Americans held only 3.4 percent of the nation’s income.
It does not have to be this way. Our nation need not tolerate persistent poverty alongside great wealth.

The United States should set a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years. A strategy to cut poverty in half should be guided by four principles:

Promote Decent Work. People should work and work should pay enough to ensure that workers and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs, and save for the future.
Provide Opportunity for All. Children should grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success; adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, live in a good neighborhood, and move up in the workforce.
Ensure Economic Security. Americans should not fall into poverty when they cannot work or work is unavailable, unstable, or pays so little that they cannot make ends meet.
Help People Build Wealth. All Americans should have the opportunity to build assets that allow them to weather periods of flux and volatility, and to have the resources that may be essential to advancement and upward mobility.
We recommend 12 key steps to cut poverty in half:

1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the average wage but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers and nearly 10 million other low-income workers.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. We recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income families. Doing so would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty.

3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers.

4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty.

5. Create 2 million new “opportunity” housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities. Nearly 8 million Americans live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty where at least 40 percent of residents are poor. Our nation should seek to end concentrated poverty and economic segregation, and promote regional equity and inner-city revitalization. We propose that over the next 10 years the federal government fund 2 million new “opportunity vouchers” designed to help people live in opportunity-rich areas. Any new affordable housing should be in communities with employment opportunities and high-quality public services, or in gentrifying communities. These housing policies should be part of a broader effort to pursue equitable development strategies in regional and local planning efforts, including efforts to improve schools, create affordable housing, assure physical security, and enhance neighborhood amenities.

6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work. About 1.7 million poor youth ages 16 to 24 were out of school and out of work in 2005. We recommend that the federal government restore Youth Opportunity Grants to help the most disadvantaged communities and expand funding for effective and promising youth programs—with the goal of reaching 600,000 poor disadvantaged youth through these efforts. We propose a new Upward Pathway program to offer low-income youth opportunities to participate in service and training in fields that are in high-demand and provide needed public services.

7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state. Low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher income peers, even among those of comparable abilities. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. We propose to simplify the Pell grant application process, gradually raise Pell Grants to reach 70 percent of the average costs of attending a four-year public institution, and encourage institutions to do more to raise student completion rates. As the federal government does its part, states should develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents, following promising models already underway in a number of states.

8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We urge all states to develop comprehensive reentry services aimed at reintegrating former prisoners into their communities with full-time, consistent employment.

9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system. Only about 35 percent of the unemployed, and a smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. We recommend that states (with federal help) reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances, and allow unemployed workers to use periods of unemployment as a time to upgrade their skills and qualifications.

10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment.

11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services. Despite having less income, lower-income families often pay more than middle and high-income families for the same consumer products. We recommend that the federal and state governments should address the foreclosure crisis through expanded mortgage assistance programs and by new federal legislation to curb unscrupulous practices. And we propose that the federal government establish a $50 million Financial Fairness Innovation Fund to support state efforts to broaden access to mainstream goods and financial services in predominantly low-income communities.

12. Expand and simplify the Saver’s Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. For many families, saving for purposes such as education, a home, or a small business is key to making economic progress. We propose that the federal “Saver’s Credit” be reformed to make it fully refundable. This Credit should also be broadened to apply to other appropriate savings vehicles intended to foster asset accumulation, with consideration given to including individual development accounts, children’s saving accounts, and college savings plans.

Our recommendations would cut poverty in half. The Urban Institute, which modeled the implementation of one set of our recommendations, estimates that four of our steps would reduce poverty by 26 percent, bringing us more than halfway toward our goal. Among their findings:

Taken together, our minimum wage, EITC, child credit, and child care recommendations would reduce poverty by 26 percent. This would mean 9.4 million fewer people in poverty and a national poverty rate of 9.1 percent—the lowest in recorded U.S. history.
The racial poverty gap would be narrowed: White poverty would fall from 8.7 percent to 7 percent. Poverty among African Americans would fall from 21.4 percent to 15.6 percent. Hispanic poverty would fall from 21.4 percent to 12.9 percent and poverty for all others would fall from 12.7 percent to 10.3 percent.

Child poverty and extreme poverty would both fall: Child poverty would drop by 41 percent. The number of people in extreme poverty would fall by 2.4 million.

Millions of low- and moderate-income families would benefit. Almost half of the benefits of our proposal would help low- and moderate-income families.
That these recommendations would reduce poverty by more than one quarter is powerful evidence that a 50 percent reduction can be reached within a decade.

The combined cost of our principal recommendations is in the range of $90 billion a year—a significant cost but one that could be readily funded through a fairer tax system. An additional $90 billion in annual spending would represent about 0.8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, which is a fraction of the money spent on tax changes that benefited primarily the wealthy in recent years. Consider that:

The current annual costs of the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003 are in the range of $400 billion a year.

In 2008 alone the value of the tax cuts to households with incomes exceeding $200,000 a year is projected to be $100 billion.

Our recommendations could be fully paid for simply by bringing better balance to the federal tax system and recouping part of what has been lost by the excessive tax cuts of recent years. We recognize that serious action has serious costs, but the challenge before the nation is not that we cannot afford to act; rather, it is that we must decide to act.

The Next Steps

In 2009, we will have a new president and a new Congress. Across the nation, there is a yearning for a shared national commitment to build a better, fairer, more prosperous country, with opportunity for all. In communities across the nation, policymakers, business people, people of faith, and concerned citizens are coming together. Our commitment to the common good compels us to move forward.
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal said:
I thought this was a good article to help combat it. But of course, those that make over $200,000 year probably will throw a fit for that 100 Billion tax cut they are getting in 2008..........

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half

By The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty

April 25, 2007





Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.

The Center for American Progress last year convened a diverse group of national experts and leaders to examine the causes and consequences of poverty in America and make recommendations for national action. In this report, our Task Force on Poverty calls for a national goal of cutting poverty in half in the next 10 years and proposes a strategy to reach the goal.

Our nation has seen periods of dramatic poverty reduction at times when near-full employment was combined with sound federal and state policies, motivated individual initiative, supportive civic involvement, and sustained national commitment. In the last six years, however, our nation has moved in the opposite direction. The number of poor Americans has grown by five million, while inequality has reached historic high levels.

Consider the following facts:

One in eight Americans now lives in poverty. A family of four is considered poor if the family’s income is below $19,971—a bar far below what most people believe a family needs to get by. Still, using this measure, 12.6 percent of all Americans were poor in 2005, and more than 90 million people (31 percent of all Americans) had incomes below 200 percent of federal poverty thresholds.
Millions of Americans will spend at least one year in poverty at some point in their lives. One third of all Americans will experience poverty within a 13-year period. In that period, one in 10 Americans are poor for most of the time, and one in 20 are poor for 10 or more years.
Poverty in the United States is far higher than in many other developed nations. At the turn of the 21st century, the United States ranked 24th among 25 countries when measuring the share of the population below 50 percent of median income.
Inequality has reached record highs. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19 percent) since 1929. At the same time, the poorest 20 percent of Americans held only 3.4 percent of the nation’s income.
It does not have to be this way. Our nation need not tolerate persistent poverty alongside great wealth.

The United States should set a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years. A strategy to cut poverty in half should be guided by four principles:

Promote Decent Work. People should work and work should pay enough to ensure that workers and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs, and save for the future.
Provide Opportunity for All. Children should grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success; adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, live in a good neighborhood, and move up in the workforce.
Ensure Economic Security. Americans should not fall into poverty when they cannot work or work is unavailable, unstable, or pays so little that they cannot make ends meet.
Help People Build Wealth. All Americans should have the opportunity to build assets that allow them to weather periods of flux and volatility, and to have the resources that may be essential to advancement and upward mobility.
We recommend 12 key steps to cut poverty in half:

1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the average wage but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers and nearly 10 million other low-income workers.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. We recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income families. Doing so would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty.

3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers.

4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty.

5. Create 2 million new “opportunity” housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities. Nearly 8 million Americans live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty where at least 40 percent of residents are poor. Our nation should seek to end concentrated poverty and economic segregation, and promote regional equity and inner-city revitalization. We propose that over the next 10 years the federal government fund 2 million new “opportunity vouchers” designed to help people live in opportunity-rich areas. Any new affordable housing should be in communities with employment opportunities and high-quality public services, or in gentrifying communities. These housing policies should be part of a broader effort to pursue equitable development strategies in regional and local planning efforts, including efforts to improve schools, create affordable housing, assure physical security, and enhance neighborhood amenities.

6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work. About 1.7 million poor youth ages 16 to 24 were out of school and out of work in 2005. We recommend that the federal government restore Youth Opportunity Grants to help the most disadvantaged communities and expand funding for effective and promising youth programs—with the goal of reaching 600,000 poor disadvantaged youth through these efforts. We propose a new Upward Pathway program to offer low-income youth opportunities to participate in service and training in fields that are in high-demand and provide needed public services.

7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state. Low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher income peers, even among those of comparable abilities. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. We propose to simplify the Pell grant application process, gradually raise Pell Grants to reach 70 percent of the average costs of attending a four-year public institution, and encourage institutions to do more to raise student completion rates. As the federal government does its part, states should develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents, following promising models already underway in a number of states.

8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We urge all states to develop comprehensive reentry services aimed at reintegrating former prisoners into their communities with full-time, consistent employment.

9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system. Only about 35 percent of the unemployed, and a smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. We recommend that states (with federal help) reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances, and allow unemployed workers to use periods of unemployment as a time to upgrade their skills and qualifications.

10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment.

11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services. Despite having less income, lower-income families often pay more than middle and high-income families for the same consumer products. We recommend that the federal and state governments should address the foreclosure crisis through expanded mortgage assistance programs and by new federal legislation to curb unscrupulous practices. And we propose that the federal government establish a $50 million Financial Fairness Innovation Fund to support state efforts to broaden access to mainstream goods and financial services in predominantly low-income communities.

12. Expand and simplify the Saver’s Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. For many families, saving for purposes such as education, a home, or a small business is key to making economic progress. We propose that the federal “Saver’s Credit” be reformed to make it fully refundable. This Credit should also be broadened to apply to other appropriate savings vehicles intended to foster asset accumulation, with consideration given to including individual development accounts, children’s saving accounts, and college savings plans.

Our recommendations would cut poverty in half. The Urban Institute, which modeled the implementation of one set of our recommendations, estimates that four of our steps would reduce poverty by 26 percent, bringing us more than halfway toward our goal. Among their findings:

Taken together, our minimum wage, EITC, child credit, and child care recommendations would reduce poverty by 26 percent. This would mean 9.4 million fewer people in poverty and a national poverty rate of 9.1 percent—the lowest in recorded U.S. history.
The racial poverty gap would be narrowed: White poverty would fall from 8.7 percent to 7 percent. Poverty among African Americans would fall from 21.4 percent to 15.6 percent. Hispanic poverty would fall from 21.4 percent to 12.9 percent and poverty for all others would fall from 12.7 percent to 10.3 percent.

Child poverty and extreme poverty would both fall: Child poverty would drop by 41 percent. The number of people in extreme poverty would fall by 2.4 million.

Millions of low- and moderate-income families would benefit. Almost half of the benefits of our proposal would help low- and moderate-income families.
That these recommendations would reduce poverty by more than one quarter is powerful evidence that a 50 percent reduction can be reached within a decade.

The combined cost of our principal recommendations is in the range of $90 billion a year—a significant cost but one that could be readily funded through a fairer tax system. An additional $90 billion in annual spending would represent about 0.8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, which is a fraction of the money spent on tax changes that benefited primarily the wealthy in recent years. Consider that:

The current annual costs of the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003 are in the range of $400 billion a year.

In 2008 alone the value of the tax cuts to households with incomes exceeding $200,000 a year is projected to be $100 billion.

Our recommendations could be fully paid for simply by bringing better balance to the federal tax system and recouping part of what has been lost by the excessive tax cuts of recent years. We recognize that serious action has serious costs, but the challenge before the nation is not that we cannot afford to act; rather, it is that we must decide to act.

The Next Steps

In 2009, we will have a new president and a new Congress. Across the nation, there is a yearning for a shared national commitment to build a better, fairer, more prosperous country, with opportunity for all. In communities across the nation, policymakers, business people, people of faith, and concerned citizens are coming together. Our commitment to the common good compels us to move forward.
More government solutions? Does Phyllis Schaffley know about this? So which one is your favorite?
 

Cal

Well-known member
nr said:
A very interesting report, Cal. " If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty," is a fact well publicized. Just yesterday Mr nr and I met an example of how materialism threatens the lives of the poor, perhaps not such a problem in earlier decades. She was a mother of 2 and expecting her third child all by a common-law husband . We met her at an empowerment center for the homeless or almost homeless. I asked her why they hadn't married. My concern was if he left her she'd have a harder time getting child support. She seemed oblivious to the many factors in her life that often lead to abandonment, said they hadn't married because he wanted a B-I-G wedding with all the frills which they couldn't afford (and also handily gets him off the hook) and her dream was to honeymoon in Las Vegas.

Maybe they'll make it. I hope they do. She seemed like a sincere and pleasant young gal, clean, trying to be organized and a good mother, but inside me I wanted to yell, wake up!

The men who came into the center yesterday fell into the partially employed alchoholics who had lost their drivers licenses which made getting to jobs difficult. The article didn't mention substance abuse which is surprising considering its grip on the nation's poor. I wonder why?

Other than that it made many good points regarding a complex problem.
nr, the volunteer work you do is admirable, and agree that substance abuse is a huge factor. Had a guy start here that owes a load of child support and, subsequently had his drivers license taken away, which we can work around. To him his problems seem unsurmountable, but am trying to convince him that he has to do the right thing and get this paid off, and get involved in his kids lives again....to make a long story short. Lots of variables involved, will see what happens. Hope this doesn't turn into one of those cases where I try to help someone out and end up wishing I hadn't.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Cal, I would think #1 and #4 would help quite a bit.

The majority of women who work are not on the high end of the salary scale. If you have a child under 5, child care costs can range anywhere from $15 to $40 per day in a daycare program.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
and agree that substance abuse is a huge factor.

And there is a place that Dems and Repubs need to get together and quit their fighting and combine forces...I've watched it for 35 years- and one of the reasons the substance abuse gets worse is that you can't get a concentrated effort...

I've seen the cycle go around and around:
Dems come into power and have set up some very needed, very good treatment and rehab centers-- even funding re-education--but sometimes folks need the threat of severe punishment to get them into the treatment....
And I have seen some good results come out of these centers.....But during the times of the Dem control- the enforcement usually gets cut way back in funding....

But then Repubs come in and say quit mollycoddling them and the answer is more enforcement and stricter punishment- lock them all up in the pen-cut the rehab funding and close the treatment centers-- and then cry when the jails and prisons are all overcrowded with constant repeat offenders- and they are too full to give the treatment needed and the follow up treatment is not there....

I've sat in several situations lately where young folks- 21-25 years old are repeat 2-3 times DUI/alcohol/drug offense repeaters.....These are the type folks that aren't going to be stopped until some major intervention is done--which I have the opportunity to make -choice between years in jail or go to treatment- complete and follow up on the program- with several years probation to guarantee incentive...To me a good intervention :wink: ....
But
now all the funding for local treatment has been cut and treatment centers have been closed again- so all thats left is jail- which alone ain't going to stop them, and in many cases just makes them worse...

One of my Pet Peeves......
 

nr

Well-known member
Cal said:
nr said:
Other than that it made many good points regarding a complex problem.
nr, ... Had a guy start here that owes a load of child support and, subsequently had his drivers license taken away, which we can work around. To him his problems seem unsurmountable, but am trying to convince him that he has to do the right thing and get this paid off, and get involved in his kids lives again....to make a long story short. Lots of variables involved, will see what happens. Hope this doesn't turn into one of those cases where I try to help someone out and end up wishing I hadn't.
It CAN be discouraging. I hope he grows under your mentoring and is successful getting out of debt and mending fences.
I'm coming to the conclusion when trying to help someone out (financially) give it without any mental strings cause it will never come back and often (usually) won't be used in what I think would be rational ways! (Can there be any more stupidity out there?!) The best way would be for the person to earn the money, no handouts, but this is not always possible. And in helping someone with hospitality, again, no mental strings. And in giving of time many will think my time is worth nothing so I have to set some boundaries, then just do it for the Lord. And remind mysef to let expectations go which requires humility. I'm not very good at that :oops:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Since we're telling stories here.

I have a life long friend shite for brains when it came to money, but she did OK for herself as time went on. She was one of those that would go out and buy $100 worth of silly tee shirts with sayings on the front.

Anyhoo...she got married to the most worthless POS in 4 counties. Had a baby and now just sold their land and trailer home, which they owed about $20K on the trailer and it was 19 yrs old ( they paid $17K for it new!). In return they pay the man who bought the place $200/month for THE NEXT 6 YEARS!! Time you do the math....the man will have the land for free and make about $4500 to boot!! No one could tell them this was BAD as she left it up to the "man" of the house....but he's mostly on the floor!! :roll: :roll: I asked what do you do if you miss a payment...I got a 'deer in the headlites' look on that one!!! They can NEVER meet a payment date, no matter how small the amount as she has just FINALLY got a job and the ' man' doesn't/won't work anywhere.

She was telling me how hungry they were one day. So I was just about to tell her to put on her shoes I was on my way and we'd go the grocery and I'd buy whatever she needed. Wasn't about to give her the cash money.

Just as I was about to say that, she interrupted me and said ' Well, I gotta go and get over here and read my new books I just got by mail order".... I asked ' what books?". She'd ordered $40 worth of romance novels on her credit card, which she then tells me that little amount had just maxed it out to the tune of $25K!!!!! With a hungry baby and a deadbeat husband....that was what she did with her last $40.


I just said, " bye I'll talk to you later".

There are some people you just can't help!
 

katrina

Well-known member
Bravo Cal and nr for taking on the task...... Government is not the answer... I think this is where the nrs and Cals of the world take an interest in their neighbors..... What is poor??? A number or statistics?? What about keeping up with the jones's attitude.... You can't help people who don't want to be helped.........
 

Steve

Well-known member
KolanuRaven
There are some people you just can't help!

oh how true,...I have never heard of a government program that will make a person take responsibility for their actions..

Giving more help (money) for many is not the answer...

as it only frees up their cash to spend on other stuff,..
 

Steve

Well-known member
MoGal
The majority of women who work are not on the high end of the salary scale. If you have a child under 5, child care costs can range anywhere from $15 to $40 per day in a daycare program.

Hear comes the "libertarian side of me"

How is it my responsibility to "fund" more child care?

I am all for "pre-school"...head start...ect.,.. but at what point must we start taking care of every-ones children? what happened to "families" taking care of their own?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
MoGal
The majority of women who work are not on the high end of the salary scale. If you have a child under 5, child care costs can range anywhere from $15 to $40 per day in a daycare program.

Hear comes the "libertarian side of me"

How is it my responsibility to "fund" more child care?

I am all for "pre-school"...head start...ect.,.. but at what point must we start taking care of every-ones children? what happened to "families" taking care of their own?

The "responsible part" comes, at least to my thinking, when its cost effective. Helping a single mom learn a skill to make a living by helping pay for her childcare while she is in a tech school or some similar institution trying to better herself will pay dividends most of the time. Sure some will take advantage, just identify them for denial of benefits in the future. But I think most will benefit and then so will taxpayers. Or you can just let them stay home and keep drawing. Not a hard decision for me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben Stein--conservative of conservatives-- was on the O'Reilly Factor the other night...He thinks that the huge amounts of money some people are making- which is making the highest percentage of rich elites ever in the history of the nation- should be used for three things- Guaranteeing everyone in the nation has health care insurance, raising the salaries of our military people, and moving toward balanced budgets....

His suggestion is to take people like himself and O'Reilly, that earn more than $5 million a year and pay in the 38% percentile tax bracket- and add a 3% surcharge to that...He says that is "a duty" of the super rich and that 3% would be a drop in the bucket for the elites....


"With so many unmet social needs, in a nation with so many people without health care, in a nation running immense and endless deficits, it's time for the rich to pay their fair share."


Pointing his finger at the rich, he shouted, "The rich should simply not be that much richer than everyone else - especially those whose lives protect them from terrorism." He's angry about the "stunning underpayment of military men and women" and the "staggering budget deficits."
 

katrina

Well-known member
I guess I don't understand why someone that is rich and sucessful works hard for their living have to support poeple who refuses to work.......
I would much rather choose who I help than be exspected to help because I worked and saved, budgeted.... Wouldn't it be great to get an excentive for helping the poor. That's what's wrong with this country is that it's bad to make money cuz of taxes, when if you're in the red you don't......
There is always work if you want it....... It's just easier to stand with your hand out exspecting someone else to pay your way..........
 

nr

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Since we're telling stories here.

I have a life long friend shite for brains when it came to money, but she did OK for herself as time went on. She was one of those that would go out and buy $100 worth of silly tee shirts with sayings on the front.

Anyhoo...she got married to the most worthless POS in 4 counties. Had a baby and now just sold their land and trailer home, which they owed about $20K on the trailer and it was 19 yrs old ( they paid $17K for it new!). In return they pay the man who bought the place $200/month for THE NEXT 6 YEARS!! Time you do the math....the man will have the land for free and make about $4500 to boot!! No one could tell them this was BAD as she left it up to the "man" of the house....but he's mostly on the floor!! :roll: :roll: I asked what do you do if you miss a payment...I got a 'deer in the headlites' look on that one!!! They can NEVER meet a payment date, no matter how small the amount as she has just FINALLY got a job and the ' man' doesn't/won't work anywhere.

She was telling me how hungry they were one day. So I was just about to tell her to put on her shoes I was on my way and we'd go the grocery and I'd buy whatever she needed. Wasn't about to give her the cash money.

Just as I was about to say that, she interrupted me and said ' Well, I gotta go and get over here and read my new books I just got by mail order".... I asked ' what books?". She'd ordered $40 worth of romance novels on her credit card, which she then tells me that little amount had just maxed it out to the tune of $25K!!!!! With a hungry baby and a deadbeat husband....that was what she did with her last $40.


I just said, " bye I'll talk to you later".

There are some people you just can't help!
If her stupidity and neglect is starving her baby I'd say THAT is one case for social services.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Perhaps one step the federal government could do in order to help demolish poverty is to raise the current minimum wage. Two adults can work full time at minimum wage and qualify for government programs. There can be very hard working individuals that cannot pay their rent, utilities, buy formula, or other basic Needs while working at least 40 hours a week or more.

I agree there are the cases that simply work the system but instead of condeming all individuals that apply for assistance from our federal government why not look at the fact that sometimes good hard working people have bad luck and need assistance.

There are many government programs that encourage individuals at or below the poverty level to enpower themselves and strive for a better lifestyle for themselves and their family. The programs set goals and in order for families to stay in the federally funded program they must work toward obtaining those goals.

Ever heard the old saying never judge a man until you walk in his shoes???
 

nr

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Perhaps one step the federal government could do in order to help demolish poverty is to raise the current minimum wage. Two adults can work full time at minimum wage and qualify for government programs. There can be very hard working individuals that cannot pay their rent, utilities, buy formula, or other basic Needs while working at least 40 hours a week or more.

I agree there are the cases that simply work the system but instead of condeming all individuals that apply for assistance from our federal government why not look at the fact that sometimes good hard working people have bad luck and need assistance.

There are many government programs that encourage individuals at or below the poverty level to enpower themselves and strive for a better lifestyle for themselves and their family. The programs set goals and in order for families to stay in the federally funded program they must work toward obtaining those goals.

Ever heard the old saying never judge a man until you walk in his shoes???
You stated it well, CattleArmy. the cost of living is so high in some areas that min. wage plus hard work isn't enough to stay afloat. Or it may be enough to JUST stay afloat...until an injury, a fire, car breaks down etc. and there is no cushion.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Ever heard the old saying never judge a man until you walk in his shoes???
Always walk a mile in his shoes....that way, when you criticize him, you have a mile head start and he's barefoot.
 
Top