When America Was 'Great,' Taxes Were High, Unions Were Strong, and Government Was Big

[ksen]

Uh, that's not how poverty is calculated at all.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm

The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder.

http://www.census.gov/library/infographics/poverty_measure-how.html

The article that was started in the other thread calculated poverty as being below half the median household income. So there are different definitions.

http://www.nwlc.org/our-issues/poverty-%2526-income-support/data-on-poverty-%2526-income

That's just one of many.

Care to quote or point out where the different poverty-threshhold calculations are in your link? I went there and didn't see any other than relying on the Census Bureau's threshhold which I've shown the calculation for above.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Athena's link defined poverty using the median income

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?6258-For-a-rich-country-the-U-S-has-an-unusually-high-child-poverty-rate

 

[ksen]

Athena's link defined poverty using the median income

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?6258-For-a-rich-country-the-U-S-has-an-unusually-high-child-poverty-rate

So? That's that thread and since it compares multiple countries it hardly makes sense to us the US Census Bureau's poverty threshhold level.

Claiming, as you did, that poverty "is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else" is just wrong. Is it really that hard to admit you were mistaken and just move the discussion along?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Athena's link defined poverty using the median income

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?6258-For-a-rich-country-the-U-S-has-an-unusually-high-child-poverty-rate

So? That's that thread and since it compares multiple countries it hardly makes sense to us the US Census Bureau's poverty threshhold level.

Claiming, as you did, that poverty "is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else" is just wrong. Is it really that hard to admit you were mistaken and just move the discussion along?

That's fine. But I asked in the other thread, can we get a poverty level that measures something real? How many calories were people consuming in the 60s compared to today? Are people dying from malnutrition?

 

[ksen]

So? That's that thread and since it compares multiple countries it hardly makes sense to us the US Census Bureau's poverty threshhold level.

Claiming, as you did, that poverty "is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else" is just wrong. Is it really that hard to admit you were mistaken and just move the discussion along?

That's fine. But I asked in the other thread, can we get a poverty level that measures something real? How many calories were people consuming in the 60s compared to today? Are people dying from malnutrition?

In this thread who cares?

Take those questions to that thread if you're really interested and acknowledge they have to do with that thread.

 

[laughing dog]

So? That's that thread and since it compares multiple countries it hardly makes sense to us the US Census Bureau's poverty threshhold level.

Claiming, as you did, that poverty "is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else" is just wrong. Is it really that hard to admit you were mistaken and just move the discussion along?

That's fine. But I asked in the other thread, can we get a poverty level that measures something real? How many calories were people consuming in the 60s compared to today? Are people dying from malnutrition?

You want some absolute measure of poverty, as if society is static. Or are you now going to argue that poverty is not so bad today because today's poor have it better than the poor in the 1960s, or 1930s or 1830s or 30AD or 430 BC?

 

[Trausti]

So? That's that thread and since it compares multiple countries it hardly makes sense to us the US Census Bureau's poverty threshhold level.

Claiming, as you did, that poverty "is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else" is just wrong. Is it really that hard to admit you were mistaken and just move the discussion along?

That's fine. But I asked in the other thread, can we get a poverty level that measures something real? How many calories were people consuming in the 60s compared to today? Are people dying from malnutrition?

Probably not. The definition will constantly be changed to fit a political agenda. But whatever. Returning to the silliness of the OP, there are just too many dissimilarities with the 1950s from today; allowing commentators to cherry-pick what supports their position and ignore what does not. After all, LBJ's Great Society, and the laundry list of social programs, occurred long after the 1950s ended. These programs are obviously the reason for the economic doldrums of today.

 

[Ford]

Nope. Still not making any sense.

Huh? If you allow easy divorce which creates many more single family woman households which are poor, then you are going to increase poverty. It's the tradeoff for having unhappy marriages.

Huh? If you make divorce more difficult, you make it more expensive. Quick, no-fault divorces leave more money in the hands of both parties. Long, drawn out complicated divorces are very costly. If you made it more difficult to divorce, you'd be enriching the attorneys who handled the cases.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a libertarian? Government forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages doesn't seem very libertarian.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Huh? If you allow easy divorce which creates many more single family woman households which are poor, then you are going to increase poverty. It's the tradeoff for having unhappy marriages.

Huh? If you make divorce more difficult, you make it more expensive. Quick, no-fault divorces leave more money in the hands of both parties. Long, drawn out complicated divorces are very costly. If you made it more difficult to divorce, you'd be enriching the attorneys who handled the cases.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a libertarian? Government forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages doesn't seem very libertarian.

And I said I have no problem with it, just that the cost of that freedom will be more families in poverty. It's the families decision.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Huh? If you allow easy divorce which creates many more single family woman households which are poor, then you are going to increase poverty. It's the tradeoff for having unhappy marriages.

Huh? If you make divorce more difficult, you make it more expensive. Quick, no-fault divorces leave more money in the hands of both parties. Long, drawn out complicated divorces are very costly. If you made it more difficult to divorce, you'd be enriching the attorneys who handled the cases.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a libertarian? Government forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages doesn't seem very libertarian.

The word libertarian has been one of the most devastated victims of American newspeak.

 

[Ford]

Huh? If you make divorce more difficult, you make it more expensive. Quick, no-fault divorces leave more money in the hands of both parties. Long, drawn out complicated divorces are very costly. If you made it more difficult to divorce, you'd be enriching the attorneys who handled the cases.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a libertarian? Government forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages doesn't seem very libertarian.

And I said I have no problem with it, just that the cost of that freedom will be more families in poverty. It's the families decision.

You kinda need to back up the assertion that easier divorce = more poverty.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And I said I have no problem with it, just that the cost of that freedom will be more families in poverty. It's the families decision.

You kinda need to back up the assertion that easier divorce = more poverty.

Here is one, there are a lot of studies.

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/effects-marriage-and-divorce-families-and-children

 

[Ford]

You kinda need to back up the assertion that easier divorce = more poverty.

Here is one, there are a lot of studies.

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/effects-marriage-and-divorce-families-and-children

That's not a study. It is a policy paper. I admit to not having thoroughly read through it, but the piece does not appear to support your assertion that making divorce as difficult as it was in the 50s would alleviate poverty.

It seems to focus on educating people so that they don't enter into marriage unprepared, and (possibly) reducing divorce by use of education, counseling, teaching problem-solving skills, etc.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here is one, there are a lot of studies.

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/effects-marriage-and-divorce-families-and-children

That's not a study. It is a policy paper. I admit to not having thoroughly read through it, but the piece does not appear to support your assertion that making divorce as difficult as it was in the 50s would alleviate poverty.

It seems to focus on educating people so that they don't enter into marriage unprepared, and (possibly) reducing divorce by use of education, counseling, teaching problem-solving skills, etc.

You can do a search on divorce and poverty. The keys to staying out of poverty are getting married, having kids late, and staying in school.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That's not a study. It is a policy paper. I admit to not having thoroughly read through it, but the piece does not appear to support your assertion that making divorce as difficult as it was in the 50s would alleviate poverty.

It seems to focus on educating people so that they don't enter into marriage unprepared, and (possibly) reducing divorce by use of education, counseling, teaching problem-solving skills, etc.

You can do a search on divorce and poverty. The keys to staying out of poverty are getting married, having kids late, and staying in school.

You do realize you are making an absolute statement, don't you? A statement that can be disproven by one example of a family with married parents who had kids late, completed their education and still found themselves in poverty, even if only briefly.

Sure you don't want to rephrase your statement?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You can do a search on divorce and poverty. The keys to staying out of poverty are getting married, having kids late, and staying in school.

You do realize you are making an absolute statement, don't you? A statement that can be disproven by one example of a family with married parents who had kids late, completed their education and still found themselves in poverty, even if only briefly.

Sure you don't want to rephrase your statement?

It's not an absolute but the guidelines. It's like how to be healthy, eating good foods and exercise.

 

[Ford]

That's not a study. It is a policy paper. I admit to not having thoroughly read through it, but the piece does not appear to support your assertion that making divorce as difficult as it was in the 50s would alleviate poverty.

It seems to focus on educating people so that they don't enter into marriage unprepared, and (possibly) reducing divorce by use of education, counseling, teaching problem-solving skills, etc.

You can do a search on divorce and poverty. The keys to staying out of poverty are getting married, having kids late, and staying in school.

Well then let's make marriage mandatory in order to have kids, enforce a waiting period in order to have children, make divorce illegal, and impose severe consequences for anyone who drops out of school.


Freedom!


Sarcasm aside, you did not support your assertion that making divorce more difficult would alleviate poverty. Furthermore, the policy paper you linked didn't make the case that easy divorce was the cause of poverty.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You do realize you are making an absolute statement, don't you? A statement that can be disproven by one example of a family with married parents who had kids late, completed their education and still found themselves in poverty, even if only briefly.

Sure you don't want to rephrase your statement?

It's not an absolute but the guidelines. It's like how to be healthy, eating good foods and exercise.

Ok, then explain the Great Depression.

By your statement, simply getting married, having children late, and completing your education will keep you out of poverty, period, no exceptions, which would include economic meltdowns beyond the control of the an average family. ALSO, you made no claims about whether the marriage is a good or bad one, if the children are healthy or diasbled, if the education is marketable.

Nor have you dealt with the societal shifts with regards to marriage and how those shifts are making marriage harder.

Something as complex as family life cannot be simply dropped into a discussion as some overall general cure of the complicated social malady of poverty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Are people dying from malnutrition?

They would be if it were left up to conservatives.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's not an absolute but the guidelines. It's like how to be healthy, eating good foods and exercise.

Ok, then explain the Great Depression.

By your statement, simply getting married, having children late, and completing your education will keep you out of poverty, period, no exceptions, which would include economic meltdowns beyond the control of the an average family. ALSO, you made no claims about whether the marriage is a good or bad one, if the children are healthy or diasbled, if the education is marketable.

Nor have you dealt with the societal shifts with regards to marriage and how those shifts are making marriage harder.

Something as complex as family life cannot be simply dropped into a discussion as some overall general cure of the complicated social malady of poverty.

Would you advise someone to start smoking because there are some smokers who live longer than non-smokers and not all smokers get cancer?

- - - Updated - - -

You can do a search on divorce and poverty. The keys to staying out of poverty are getting married, having kids late, and staying in school.

Well then let's make marriage mandatory in order to have kids, enforce a waiting period in order to have children, make divorce illegal, and impose severe consequences for anyone who drops out of school.


Freedom!


Sarcasm aside, you did not support your assertion that making divorce more difficult would alleviate poverty. Furthermore, the policy paper you linked didn't make the case that easy divorce was the cause of poverty.

I can find policy papers that say that but they would be right wing think tanks and hence rejected on here.