Poverty rate up in metro areas: Report

Just more proof that the republicans tax cut didnt work, will never work and will never trickle down. Just more proof that the republicans are for the rich and rich only. Just more proof that everything we did to close this poverty gap has been reversed by the republican agenda to keep the masases poor and uneducated so they listen and are feared into submission to vote for them again!.

Just the way the Republicans want it. They want to keep the poor as poor as possible, and redistribute as much wealth as possible to the rich.

They constantly rail against unions for wanting decent wages for workers, they fight the minimum wage. They think the problems with the economy are caused by workers making too much. They will not be happy until the common worker in this country is making a third world wage, with no access to health care, and no safety net.

The rich getting richer is their only definition of a "good economy". They will sacrifice everyone else for that goal.

Wow, I am surprised you even found the time or the space to report on some NEWS, what with Paris Hilton and pilloried former Senator Edwards. How dare you bother us with something that has to do with our national life !!!
Here, I thought the tax rebate and reduction for the rich, would help out the less fortunate, here in the wealthiest nation in the world. How wrong I was !! The rich became richer and the poor became even poorer !! You can't get anymore democratic than that, can you ?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

More evidence that the Republican theory of a trickle down economy is hogwash.

Terry will be along shortly to tell us that increasing poverty is really good economic news.

....and John and GreenTrees and RNC Bruce and the rest of the republican fairy tale tellers.

Just the way the Republicans want it. They want to keep the poor as poor as possible, and redistribute as much wealth as possible to the rich.

They constantly rail against unions for wanting decent wages for workers, they fight the minimum wage. They think the problems with the economy are caused by workers making too much. They will not be happy until the common worker in this country is making a third world wage, with no access to health care, and no safety net.

The rich getting richer is their only definition of a "good economy". They will sacrifice everyone else for that goal.

Posted by: MBT | August 12, 2008 10:15 AM

Okay Alice in wonderland- how has this Congress's one hit wonder " the minimum wage increase helped so far? It has been in place for the better part of two years??

When the rich get richer - guess what happens?

They invest more- trying to get richer..

this creates jobs, wealth, and more rich and middle class people...

venture capital is available for things like alternative energy development, improved,c heaper consumer products, more efficient distribution processes- which all levels of society enjoy the benefits of..

heartburn-

Read the article friend, this is about data from prior the the Democratic Congress coming to power. Now, please show how in that period of time the taxcuts helped improve the rate of poverty. Did the lower levels of our society benefit from that plan? Nope. Poverty increased. More people became poor, and the poor got poorer. Your fantasy that helping the rich helps the poor doesn't match up with reality Mother Goose. It just plain did not happen.

heartburn-

Unfortunately for your argument, that didn't happen as the study noted shows. Poverty increased. The benefits to the more wealthy did not only trickle down to the poor and help them, the poor ended up worse off. More people ended up in poverty than before the tax cuts. The facts simply disprove all you had to say.

Posted by: MBT | August 12, 2008 11:47 AM

You can pick your time frame or point of reference- this doesn't address the core issue... makes for good politics though.
##########

More people ending up in poverty is not a result of tax cuts - this has happened in spite of the tax cuts..

An equally compelling argument for the tax cuts would be the increased amount of people that have moved from the middle class to the evil "rich" group-

Or even the fact that despite the dot.com bust ( the left ignores this when they play the "wonderful 90s" surplus card), 9/11 and fighting two wars, that our economy continues to grow and that our unemployment rate is still at or below the average rate for the last 30 years..

Our disagreement isn't on whats happened it is on the cause effect-

You believe that the government is the bringer of opportunity and that tax reduction is some sort of benefit that the gov't bestows on people...that the government, ( in this case) hasn't given enough to poor people to make them "not" poor..

I believe that the government can never produce as much opportunity as free market capitalism- and that the more government's hands are in the economy the more likely you will have people that aren't doing as well as they should be..

For Bushonomics, that's a feature, not a bug.

Will all of you Republicans, please stop bushing us. We are just plain tired of it !! You can bush, some of the people, some of the time, but you can't bush all of the people, all of the time !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

heartburn, The middle class didn't reap large benefits during that period either. Real wages for the middle class actually went DOWN in that same time period.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/business/21tax.html

There's no doubt about it heartburn, a small number of Ameicans did do well in this time period, However the great majority of americans did worse. The benefits simply did not trickle down to the economy as a whole.

You claim that Bush's economic policies have achieved certain goals. The facts do not support that claim. It's as simple as that.

However you have proved my original point, that Republicans like you think this is the way the economy should be. More people making less, so fewer people can make more. You yourself point that a small group got richer as proof that the tax cuts were a good thing, while apparently accepting the fact that the majority got poorer. You define a good economy as "the rich getting richer". The fact that everyone else got poorer doesn't enter the equation for you.

Or even the fact that despite the dot.com bust ( the left ignores this when they play the "wonderful 90s" surplus card),

Posted by: heartburn | August 12, 2008 1:40 PM

Oh, you mean like how you ignore the housing bust when dicussing the "wonderful 2000s"?

Posted by: MBT | August 12, 2008 2:51 PM

How many poor people hire people or sign paychecks?

Heartburn, obviously more then your heart is burned out. In July, the unemployment rate has increased to a 4 year high.
Teenage unemployment hit 20.3 percent, the highest level since late 1992!!
The lowest unemployment rate was in 2000 at 4.0 percent
Where do you get your facts buddy? Bush's diary?

heartburn, so if you don't hire people or sign paychecks, you aren't worth consideration? If you don't hire people or sign paychecks, you aren't an american citizen just as much as a rich person? If you don't hire people or sign paychecks, you should just give up on having a decent life, and the hope for a better life for your children?

If you don't hire people and sign paychecks, you aren't an integral part of the economy?Those poor people who don't hire people or sign paychecks are also consumers, that companies need to buy their products. They supply the labor to get those products made.

The poor and middle class simply do not matter to economic elitist Republicans like you. Again, you are proving my original point. You put it all into one cold question.

Posted by: MBT | August 12, 2008 3:47 PM

Please- save the drama- we are talking about what has caused the increased rate of poverty - not whether someone is valuable or not...

If you want to talk about what makes someone valuable or not- I would ask you how telling someone that they are so unemployable that the only chance they have is due to a government "benefit"... or telling them that only the government can save them from those evil rich people is treating people like valuable members of society... at least I am offering realistic solutions- you are offering politics disguised as compassion.

heartburn, who's talking about benefits for the unemployable? We're talking about the fact that real wages for full time workers went down during this period. We're talking about the fact that the numbers of full time workers below the poverty line went up during this period. Your "realistic solutions" failedin that period, as proven by this report. You're offering failure and pretending it's a great success. Trickle down failed.It didn't raise all boats. Sorry, but that's it. You haven't brought any facts to the table to show otherwise, just political rhetoric in the defense of a failed policy.

You haven't brought any facts to the table to show otherwise, just political rhetoric in the defense of a failed policy.

Posted by: MBT | August 12, 2008 5:12 PM

The closest I have gotten to a political argument in my posts here were to challenge the DEM flagship accomplishment- increased minimum wage- to highlight how our governments policies when done for political reasons almost always have a negative impact on our lives..

Minimum wage increase, on face value- is price fixing the cost of labor - this will have, and to some degree has already had a negative impact on how many people employers will hire.. (*Scot S. Blakeley's agrees with this above. see his interesting insight into teenage unemployment rates above).

In your original post - you had framed your argument with the following phrase...

"...Just the way the Republicans want it. They want to keep the poor as poor as possible, and redistribute as much wealth as possible to the rich...."

Not sure how much more political you get than that!

There is really no fact based argument for this broad sweeping type of comment - other than this;
To try to blame increased poverty on the government not taxing people enough is not a very well thought out argument...or
To be even clearer;
. to blame all of what you see as not working in the economy on the government not doing enough- exposes your misunderstanding of what the governments role SHOULD be in terms of our economy...

heartburn, OK Buddy, this is pointless. Keep believing trickle down works even though there isn't a shred of evidence to that effect. Keep ignoring the evidence that shows it actually hurt the majority of americans economically. This discussion is basically religious for you. You have a deep faith in trickle down and there are no facts or figures that will change that obviously, so there's no point in even trying.

Have a good one.

Minimum wage increase, on face value- is price fixing the cost of labor - this will have, and to some degree has already had a negative impact on how many people employers will hire.. (*Scot S. Blakeley's agrees with this above. see his interesting insight into teenage unemployment rates above).
Posted by: heartburn | August 12, 2008 5:51 PM
Um in no way do I agree with anythig you say Heartburn! Saying otherwise as you did, is republicans twisting the truth to their benefit at its best! Raising the minumum wage from out of the gutter and onto the sidewalk was desperately needed. Canada's provincial minimum wages are higher than the US. Saskatchewanbeing the highest at $8.60ph, and overall, Canada has the lowest unemployment rate since 1978! So your argument doesn't apply. Your great Trickle Down tax breaks went right into the corps pockets and portfolios NOT back into the economy with new jobs!
Please dont ever include me in your failed republican fantasy!

JT - Sorry I'm late, but unlike you non-working flat-liner libs, I have to put in my day in our capitalistic system.

Poverty up in Metro areas, not rural areas??? What do metro areas have - generally liberals run the gov't; therefore high taxes - sales tax, real estate tax, gasoline taxes, etc... (See Chicago). T

he gov't runs poor education system that keep the poor uneducated and therefore poor and the cycle just repeats generation after generation. Vouchers would solve this by getting some competition into the equation.

Scottie - I'm going to assume you are going to give Clinton credit for that 4.0% unemployment rate. I would like to hear you explanation on how the Clinton Administration's policies got the unemployment rate to 4.0%. If you say they reduced the deficit, please explain how that created low unemployment.

47 million w/o health care...a basic RIGHT....YET THERE'S plenty OF MONEY for the unwarranted INVASION!!! ...Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers...and DON'T EVEN TRY TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE IN NEW ORLEANS DIDN'T NEED HELP...YES, THERE ARE MANY OF US WHO HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN...NOR SHOULD WE!!!!...'YOU'RE DOIN' A HECK OF A JOB THERE, BROWNIE!!!."..I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO EVEN THINK ABOUT BEING A REPUBLICAN!!! AND NO MATTER WHAT YOUR STATUS IN THIS LIFE, DON'T FORGET...IT COULD BE YOU NEEDING HELP SOMEDAY...THEN HOW SMUG WILL YOU BE????

They said in the cities....that's where I saw an enoromus concentration of what looked like able bodied people in lines (Seattle) waiting for checks. Cities have the biggest concentration of programs for poor. They have a steady stream of transient type people. The crime is higher.

I looked into moving to Jacksonville and that was the first time I found out about White Flight. They said that Whites had fled the area in such numbers because of crime. If they did a study of the numbers of poor in Jacksonville they would be telling us that the Majority are poor. People who have worked their way up in their jobs, tend to move out of those areas. Those who don't, stay. If you have the numbers looking worse you could also argue that more people are doing better and moving away. Not many people want to raise families in big cities, and they move out.

You just don't see poor in the smaller town. There just aren't the programs cities have, aren't the bus service, aren't the low weakly rent transient hotels. It's not financially feasible.

Please dont ever include me in your failed republican fantasy!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2008 6:50 PM

Shucks- and here I thought you were coming around...

So are you saying that the increase in minimum wage had nothing to do with the high unemploy rate for teenagers and college students... ?