Incomes and Politics

It is in reality.:thumbs:

 

Reality is a lot more complicated and chancier than that.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Another compassionate conservative.:sleep:

You sure seem to dislike the poor.

 

Yeah, chancier (linkie) - uncertain in outcome or prospect.

That's funny because you don't believe in chance? You believe in predestination, I take it?

 

Yes, absolute in that it is set at an absolute dollar value, but fluid in that it changes from year to year.

 

How do they arrive at that "absolute" number?

 

While I don't think it's accurate at a national level, it's supposed to be based on the cost of necessities: Food, clothing, and shelter. That's a simplification, but close. The reason I don't think it's accurate is that here, a 1200 sf house will cost you $900 per month, in some places it will cost you $2000 per month (or more), and in others, you can get it for $300 (or less).

Here, a pound of hamburger is $3, but where I came from, it is currently $1.19.

 

Cruising the web about different states & their lotteries, it is found that a very LARGE percentage of the poor buy lottery tickets.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

That comment had a very specific context. It referred to HoG's 95%-5% example - which I quoted before making the remark so it's a bit difficult to miss, but, evidently, not impossible. **shakes head**

 

You can't address it again, since you have yet to address it once. Instead of arguing my point (the poor paid a greater percentage of taxes under Clinton, because more of them were working, and working more hours) you made up a lot of other stuff. While it might be easier to argue with me, if I had made those arguments you brought up, you still have to argue against the one I actually made.

Doesn't take "studying at George Mason" to understand what I said. Or it shouldn't. Maybe it's reading they don't teach?

Never commmented on that. Your imagination working again. Wouldn't it be better to argue wth me, than to argue with yourself?

I'm trying to find something in this thread where anyone said it was. Can't seem to do that. I guess we'll chalk that one up to George Mason imagineering, too.

 

Slander - incredibly idiotic slander.

Try glasses.

No, it is correct; it is your understanding that is deeply flawed.

 

That's why it's a tax on the poor. The poor generally got to where they are by making poor choices, and those who are in favor of lotteries capitalize on that.

 

I refer you back to your original post. You state specifically, "They weren't out of work when he was president."

The fact of the matter is, we have had full employment since his second year of presidency until the present.

You are making baseless accusations in your blind animosity aimed at Bush, and you cannot seem to comprehend that full employment is full employment, and when the lower income earners move up the ladder, they are paying more in taxes, and as a result, the bottom 5% are paying less, relative to their counterparts who worked harder and made wiser choices.

We are at full employment.

Do you deny that?

Average incomes have increased.

Do you deny that?

The number of people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 35.9 million in 2003, or 1.3 million more than in 2002, for a 2003 poverty rate of 12.5 percent. Although up from 2002, this rate is below the average of the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, the welfare reforms put into place by Clinton, which I whole-heartedly endors and approve of, did force many people into the work force who would not otherwise be working, and many of them remain below the poverty level, and this may be the source of your misconceptions. I think they should be forced back into the workforce since they are not going to do so voluntarily, but many of them work at jobs that lets them hide income, so they are legally "poor", but not in reality. We have a lot of those every year who come here from outside to make their millions, find out they have to actually work for it, and spend a few months bumming around and stealing and begging before being shipped to Anchorage where they then beg their way back to the outside. They are "poor", but it's by their own choices, and every Summer, they make up a significant portion of our population. Many contractors, tip earners, etc. are also "poor" legally, but not in reality.

Also, for the most part, poverty levels have been lower under Bush than under Clinton, but I take that with a grain of salt, due to other economic influences, mainly that our economy is much stronger now. (But, watch out for the results from the housing bubble bursting!) Historical Poverty Levels

Here's a table with the poverty levels: Poverty by Definition of Income

Isn't it great to have a nation that is fully employed and which everyone who wants a job can have one and those who take initiative can live well?

 

Do you understand NAIRU, Galatian?

 

Yep. As you know, unemployment has been higher under Bush than under Clinton. Would you like to see the numbers again?

"Full employment" meaning "I've got a job." :laugh: Bunny trails about "full employment" when millions are out of work is pretty pointless.

I asked you how it is "animostity" to point out that more of the poor were working more hours under Clinton. You declined to say. Indeed, if very low unemployment is dangerous, as you claim, it would be a compliment to Bush.

I'm wondering why you cannot seem to comprehend that unemployment was lower during the Clinton years than during the Bush years.

Right. But we are talking about them paying a larger percentage of total taxes, not a dollar amount. This happened, because more of them were working more hours.

A lttle George Masonry...

Sorry. No bunny trails. I said that the poor paid a greater percentage of taxes under Clinton, because more of them were working and working more hours. That's what you have to deny, if you want to take issue with what I said. Do you deny it, or do you admit it's right?

Sorry, no bunny trails. The argument was that they paid a higher percentage of taxes under Clinton.

Hmm... the Statistical Abstract of the United States says that during the Clinton years, the poor were working more, and working more hours. It also says that they paid a higher percentage of taxes in those days. You think the Statistical Abstract of the United States is wrong? Do you have any evidence for that?

(more bunny trails about the poor not being poor)

Irrelevant. Can you just address my assertion, instead of your imagineering? Or is that kind of thing frowned upon at George Mason?

 

You're going at the problem backwards. The so-called "natural" or "non-accelerating rate of unemployment", seems to be primarily due to fluctuations in productivity.

The question of how many people are actively seeking work and not finding it won't answer the question. There are always those just "between jobs", those who are just taking a hiatus from work, and so on, things they used to call "frictional unemployment."

But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the number of poor people working more. And that's very easy to find; the census bureau keeps such records, from which I've cited the facts for you.

Not as much fun, perhaps as trying to blow smoke about economic policiy, perhaps, but a lot more convincing.

Maybe things are different at George Mason.