quote:

When median income rises, so does the level at which someone is considered "poor."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
No... it just means more people will be educated... I and others have been posting links back and forth with opposing views on the reasons for the cost of high education... but the bottom line is it PAYS BIG TIME for those who get the education and this fact is irrefutable. I cannot see where the existing Affirmative Action program, what we are talking about, can be the reason for higher education costs.
The cost of education cannot be laid at the feet of government... Not when the majority of higher education facilities are private with no government input or control of tuition. It is simply greed.
Butch

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

When median income rises, so does the level at which someone is considered "poor."

No my friend this is not how it is figured... do some research.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

When median income rises, so does the level at which someone is considered "poor."

No my friend this is not how it is figured... do some research.
Butch

quote:

MOST people have an inherent sense of what it means to be poor. But choosing a definition is much trickier. Is poverty an absolute or relative condition? What is a decent standard of living? Such questions have dogged America's social scientists for decades. This month the Census Bureau published a preliminary estimate of poverty, using a new definition. It was 16 years in the making. But it is not quite finished yet.

Poverty means different things in different countries. In Europe, the poor are those whose income falls below 60% of the median. Britain uses three measures: one relative, one absolute and a broader indicator of material deprivation, such as whether a child can celebrate his birthday. The concept of poverty becomes even more slippery when attempting international comparisons. The United Nations' “human- development index” assesses countries across a range of indicators, such as schooling and life expectancy.

America's official poverty measure is far simpler. Developed in the 1960s, the poverty threshold represents the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three. ...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I do not buy that theory Aylee... basic facts show the more education the more income... there may be less demand for certain fields of education but even then those people are still making more money than their uneducated peers. As opportunities shift so will the subjects people major in... with time it always equals out.

Butch

And while that is true, the government programs have greatly contributed to the extreme increases in the cost of an education making more people unable to go to college without being dependent on the government. Dependence on the government is in and of it's self a bad thing, it kills independence and kills initiative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

When median income rises, so does the level at which someone is considered "poor."

No my friend this is not how it is figured... do some research.
Butch

Where the fuck do you think I got it? Some define poor as below 60% of the median income.

http://www.economist.com/node/17961878

quote:

MOST people have an inherent sense of what it means to be poor. But choosing a definition is much trickier. Is poverty an absolute or relative condition? What is a decent standard of living? Such questions have dogged America's social scientists for decades. This month the Census Bureau published a preliminary estimate of poverty, using a new definition. It was 16 years in the making. But it is not quite finished yet.

Poverty means different things in different countries. In Europe, the poor are those whose income falls below 60% of the median. Britain uses three measures: one relative, one absolute and a broader indicator of material deprivation, such as whether a child can celebrate his birthday. The concept of poverty becomes even more slippery when attempting international comparisons. The United Nations' “human- development index” assesses countries across a range of indicators, such as schooling and life expectancy.

America's official poverty measure is far simpler. Developed in the 1960s, the poverty threshold represents the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three. ...

Inflation raises the basic cost of food, raising the level needed to no longer be considered poor.

I don't know what Britain's definition of "celebrating" a birthday is, but there are many, many ways that don't cost much.



The "War on Poverty" was introduced in 1964. The poverty rate and the gross number of people in poverty had been falling for the 5 years prior. 51 years later, and we're almost at the same rate we were at it's inception, and there are more people (gross number) in poverty now than before the number started falling in 1959! WTF?!?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The "War on Poverty" was introduced in 1964. The poverty rate and the gross number of people in poverty had been falling for the 5 years prior. 51 years later, and we're almost at the same rate we were at it's inception, and there are more people (gross number) in poverty now than before the number started falling in 1959! WTF?!?

Yea, thanx to Reagan's tax/deficit policies, payroll tax trippling, eviscerating unions and a cut in the ant-poverty programs.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

When median income rises, so does the level at which someone is considered "poor."

No my friend this is not how it is figured... do some research.

Butch

Rich or poor is determined by what your money will buy. As median income rises x number of dollars buys less so what is needed to avoid poverty rises.
On top of this poverty is relative. Even if the cost of living didn't rise those with the lowest incomes would still be "in poverty". On the the other hand many "poverty stricken" here would be considered well off in many countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
No... Try the U.S. Census bureau
HERE

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Affirmative Action has been a great success?? In what way???

There are now many professional blacks and other minorities in the boardrooms... in research... in government.... in production... on the bench up to the Supreme Court...in all other sectors of employment because of the aid they received through affirmative action. I can tell you from personal experience many of the entities I worked for or with are actively looking for educated African Americans to employ. Affirmative action helped fill many of those jobs that before could not be filled because of lack of applicants.

This was the purpose and it worked.

Butch

Don't think so. Those Blacks made their own way. Affirmative action never sent anyone to a boardroom. I myself have an office between two Black professionals who worked hard to get where they are just as I did and were not hired based on some affirmative action measures.

Clarence Thomas admitted to taking advantage of AA. It was his judgement and position that AA helped him make his way into law.

You mean he was not good enough to enroll in Yale and got in by bumping his betters using AA. That's how AA works. This is not an impressive endorsement of AA.

Justice Thomas is on record opposing desegregation and large government. Still, he cannot be criticized for not following his beliefs when it came to taking advantage of bigger government intrusions. Or can he? What is his "code".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

It's like a gen Y I worked with for a year. I remarked one day how some people were buying houses, mortgaging them every year or so again on increased values and using them like ATMs and then handing the key over to the lender as soon as the bubble burst. He grinned and me and said how wonderful that was. It was then I knew that our younger gens were going to use the system for selfish gain, be it affirmative action or the housing bubble or disability claims for untraceable illnesses or their parents basement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The "War on Poverty" was introduced in 1964. The poverty rate and the gross number of people in poverty had been falling for the 5 years prior. 51 years later, and we're almost at the same rate we were at it's inception, and there are more people (gross number) in poverty now than before the number started falling in 1959! WTF?!?

Yea, thanx to Reagan's tax/deficit policies, payroll tax trippling, eviscerating unions and a cut in the ant-poverty programs.

Right. And, that's why, after the recession that happened at the beginning of Reagan's term, poverty levels dropped along with the gross number of people in poverty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Nowhere did I state anything like that

But you did... You said this...

.There will never ever be a time when there isn't poverty in the US. Even if the government handed out $100k to every man woman and child in the US every year, you and I both know cost of goods will rise accordingly and what it costs for a family of 4 to live (I think that's the metric for the poverty line) will rise accordingly....

In response to my contention that education would reduce the poor in American and make them tax paying citizens. This says to me you are OK with the poor and we should not use education to reduce their numbers...because... well... there will always be poor...Why else would you say that in response to my post?

Don't you think it a bit silly to say because there has been waste in government aid in the past we should not give needed aid in the future... A better response would be how we can assure our tax money is spent wisely to alleviate the suffering of the poor and provide for our general welfare? This the number one job of our government.

I have an even better idea if you don't like helping the poor... Why not extend free public education through four years of college... then it would not be aid but extending our domination on the world scene into the future.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
As I pointed out in an previous post, the benefits of AA are long term. These kinds of successful programs should continue until minority groups achieve their pro-rata representation in the professions. Only when that long term goal is achieved will the need for AA-type programs vanish

If whites want to be CPA's at a higher rate than blacks (higher, even, than their racial proportions in the population), how is it okay to not stop AA-type hiring programs?

Why is it okay to take Student A over Student B simply because the only difference between the two is that Student A is a minority, and Student B is not?

Why is it okay for a collegiate educational program to accept more minority and/or women than white men (every applicant has to qualify to a certain level, but, after that, race and gender take a preferential role, regardless of how much more qualified an applicant is)? How can that be right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The "War on Poverty" was introduced in 1964. The poverty rate and the gross number of people in poverty had been falling for the 5 years prior. 51 years later, and we're almost at the same rate we were at it's inception, and there are more people (gross number) in poverty now than before the number started falling in 1959! WTF?!?

Yea, thanx to Reagan's tax/deficit policies, payroll tax trippling, eviscerating unions and a cut in the ant-poverty programs.

Right. And, that's why, after the recession that happened at the beginning of Reagan's term, poverty levels dropped along with the gross number of people in poverty.

I see poverty falling under Reagan to still higher than at anytime in the Carter admin. Then rising again under Bush I and Clinton's first term, then falling again until Bush II then really going up with the Bush meltdown.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Yes and in other years it was different... you were wrong in how you thought the poverty threshold was figured and i just pointed that out to you... no big thing ...Now while you are in the census... please check where it lists the income by education if you please and get back to me with the results.
Butch

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I can only speak of the Australian experience. It may be that the Australian experience of AA is quite different to the US one but none of your questions are relevant to the Australian experience.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)