|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2004 02:41:17 PM · #26 |
I'm sorry, but I don't even know where to start. Are you suggesting that the rise in poverty levels is attributed to people lying about their income? Or is it attributed to so many more people reaching such incredible wealth that they no longer need to work and have asked their banks to not pay them any interest? The Census Bureau itself defines people below the poverty level as living in poverty. Maybe the US Census Bureau is part of the left wing media.
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, no. The Census Bureau bases it's definition of who is / is not below the poverty level on a SURVEY of INCOME. So...
First of all, it is NOT based on IRS data of ACTUAL reported income, but on what the survey respondants SAY their income was.
Second, it is NOT based on WEALTH, but on INCOME. So a respondant may be a retired multi-millionaire with a huge bank account but no INCOME and be counted as living below the poverty level ( based on INCOME ).
So, you could be BELOW the poverty level but not be IN poverty.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
08/27/2004 02:57:05 PM · #27 |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:06:39 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I only trust CBS and BBC. |
Does CBS have news? I was starting to think 60 Minutes was just the marketing department for Simon & Schuster. But that wouldn̢۪t be fair and balanced. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:06:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
I'm sorry, but I don't even know where to start. Are you suggesting that the rise in poverty levels is attributed to people lying about their income? Or is it attributed to so many more people reaching such incredible wealth that they no longer need to work and have asked their banks to not pay them any interest? The Census Bureau itself defines people below the poverty level as living in poverty. Maybe the US Census Bureau is part of the left wing media.
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, no. The Census Bureau bases it's definition of who is / is not below the poverty level on a SURVEY of INCOME. So...
First of all, it is NOT based on IRS data of ACTUAL reported income, but on what the survey respondants SAY their income was.
Second, it is NOT based on WEALTH, but on INCOME. So a respondant may be a retired multi-millionaire with a huge bank account but no INCOME and be counted as living below the poverty level ( based on INCOME ).
So, you could be BELOW the poverty level but not be IN poverty.
Ron |
|
You are confusing the issue. I was merely responding to YOUR earlier post, in which you said:
Originally posted by Trinch:
Sorry, but if you are living below the poverty level, wouldn't that mean you are living in poverty? The line divides the population. If you are below it, you are in poverty, if you are above it, you are not. |
I was merely pointing out that THAT statement was not true, and why it was not true.
Even if the respondents do NOT "lie", according to the Census Bureau's own documents,
"The Census Bureau does not count the following receipts as income: (1) capital gains people received (or losses they incur) from the sale of property, including stocks, bonds, a house, or a car (unless the person was engaged in the business of selling such property, in which case the CPS counts the net proceeds as income from self-employment); (2) withdrawals of bank deposits; (3) money borrowed; (4) tax refunds; (5) gifts; and (6) lump-sum inheritances or insurance payments".
Hence, if you inherited 10 million dollars on Jan 5th, quit your job, and didn't work for the rest of the year - you would be classified as "below the poverty level" - but no one in their right mind would consider that you were either "poor" or "living in poverty".
I wasn't responding to, and wasn't asked to respond to why there was a rise in the poverty level. Now that I HAVE been asked, I will respond by saying that there are, indeed, more individuals, and families, living below the poverty levels - and I would attribute that fact to several things:
1) Yes, people DO lie about their income - from what I gather, it seems quite common for people to cheat on their income taxes ( FWIW, I do not ). I don't REALLY expect a whole lot of people to divulge non-reported income to any government authority - like unreported tips, drug deals, etc.
2) Non-Cash income is not counted - again, according to the Census Bureau,
"The income and poverty estimates shown in this report are based solely on money income before taxes and do not include the value of noncash benefits such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, and employer-provided fringe benefits."
So, as government programs INCREASE, income DECREASES.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-27 17:21:39. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:09:55 PM · #30 |
According to U.S. Census Bureau Data, the U.S. hasn't seen such low "poverty" levels since the end of the Carter years -- well over a generation ago.
Breaking the data down by presidential term:
Reagan I 14.7%
Reagan II 13.5%
Bush 13.8%
Clinton I 14.3%
Clinton II 12.3%
Bush 11.9% |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:34:27 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
According to U.S. Census Bureau Data, the U.S. hasn't seen such low "poverty" levels since the end of the Carter years -- well over a generation ago.
Breaking the data down by presidential term:
Reagan I 14.7%
Reagan II 13.5%
Bush 13.8%
Clinton I 14.3%
Clinton II 12.3%
Bush 11.9% |
Thanks for that post, Eddy. Somehow, I didn't see that forest for the trees. But, that's not exactly the kind of factual information that Bush-Basher's welcome. I anticipate that you have effectively ended the rant, since the facts don't support an anti-Bush position.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:38:08 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks for that post, Eddy. Somehow, I didn't see that forest for the trees. But, that's not exactly the kind of factual information that Bush-Basher's welcome. I anticipate that you have effectively ended the rant, since the facts don't support an anti-Bush position.
Ron |
So 30 million is okay then ?
|
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:39:52 PM · #33 |
| Anyone else watch Outfoxed and have an opinion? |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 05:59:33 PM · #34 |
This is a screen shot of the site that EddyG provided a link to. I added the names of the respective administrations, and color coded them:
Reagan: Turquoise
Bush I: Baby Blue
Clinton: Red
Bush II: Pink
Note that it doesn't seem to support the conclusion that EddyG draws from it. Moreover, EddyG and RonB, do miss the forest for the trees; because what's truly important about these figures is the trend line. Note how during the Clinton administration poverty rates progressively decline. Conversely, under Mr. Bush II, the trend line is reversed. Therefore, the point of the figures is that Mr. Bush's economic policies have failed to create the jobs promised and, in stead, have caused a net negative effect on the overall economy.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2004 06:03:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks for that post, Eddy. Somehow, I didn't see that forest for the trees. But, that's not exactly the kind of factual information that Bush-Basher's welcome. I anticipate that you have effectively ended the rant, since the facts don't support an anti-Bush position.
Ron |
So 30 million is okay then ? |
No. Even 1 is not OK.
I can't believe that you actually believe that I would answer that question in the affirmative - so I don't see why you ask such a stupid question - unless, like my kids, you feel compelled to get in the last word - in which case, feel free to make another stupid post - and I'll let it go without a response, so you can claim VICTORY! |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 06:22:41 PM · #36 |
| What about what bdobe just pointed out? |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:38:57 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks for that post, Eddy. Somehow, I didn't see that forest for the trees. But, that's not exactly the kind of factual information that Bush-Basher's welcome. I anticipate that you have effectively ended the rant, since the facts don't support an anti-Bush position.
Ron |
So 30 million is okay then ? |
No. Even 1 is not OK.
I can't believe that you actually believe that I would answer that question in the affirmative - so I don't see why you ask such a stupid question - unless, like my kids, you feel compelled to get in the last word - in which case, feel free to make another stupid post - and I'll let it go without a response, so you can claim VICTORY! |
No, I'm just not the one that posted saying we should all shut up because obviously the issue is closed. You can project all you want about your own family or attempt to patronise if you like. It was a straight question for anyone who felt the issue should thus be dropped.
Why you seem to assume every issue should be considered a partisan issue indicates one of the major problems with the way things are conducted in your country. The issues remain, ignoring them and focusing on party politics again and again is just avoiding the problems, year after year.
Returning to the actual issue and getting away from the proBush rhetoric, many people do actually think that 30 million below the poverty line is a reasonable figure. Many actually think it is required for a working capitalist society. Often people subscribe to the view that poor people are just too lazy to better their situation. My question just asked if you would be one who thought that were true. As you appear to believe that most of the people who respond are probably lying anyway, why shouldn't 30 million liars be okay ?
Message edited by author 2004-08-27 23:26:12. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:59:49 PM · #38 |
I think its great that people voice their opinions. But, I can hardly wait until the election is over. I am about sick of his stuff.
It does not mean I dont care who is elected, I very much do. I will place my vote and go on my way.
I hate the us vs. them stuff that happens everytime politics come up. No one wins, its just a pissing match.
At any rate, I wish everyone the best in their next contest.
/sappy on my part.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 06:10:25 PM · #39 |
Just heard an interesting interview (Real Player) with James Wolcott, author of Attack Poodles and Other Media Mutants : The Looting of the News in a Time of Terror.
Mainstream media (CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, et al.) = Lap Dogs of the Right.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 06:20:56 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Mainstream media (CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, et al.) = Lap Dogs of the Right. |
HAHAHHA: Good joke.... Oh wait your serious... I'm sorry! |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 06:23:27 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Mainstream media (CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, et al.) = Lap Dogs of the Right. |
HAHAHHA: Good joke.... Oh wait your serious... I'm sorry! |
I hope you at least listened to the interview.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 07:10:18 PM · #42 |
| I would say that Fox News is a misnomer...it's not news at all...just presented that way. It's really just opinion and I wouldn't rate it any higher than say Jerry Springer. |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 07:54:10 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would say that Fox News is a misnomer...it's not news at all...just presented that way. It's really just opinion and I wouldn't rate it any higher than say Jerry Springer. |
i fell that way about all news media in any format. they only tell you what THEY WANT you to hear, ummm the news media sounds alot like politicians.
James
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 03:38:20 AM · #44 |
Russell2566,
I posted the following in another thread, but thought it appropriate to post here as well. For background on the post I address below, please see the thread: New info into confusion in Bush military record.
.......................................
Looks like a couple of points need clarification:
1. I have not said that the mainstream media is conservative. Here's what I wrote:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Of course, the so-called liberal media are just a bunch of f**king wimps that are just scared sh*tless about being labeled "liberal," so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry. Anyhow, I seriously doubt that I can convince any of you of this (as you know what you know, and are not about to change your mind); however, I just wanted to offer this backgrounder before getting into the bias of the source behind this story. |
2. Lemme explain what I mean by "factual conservative dominance of our media industry."
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan's election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute -- there are others, but these are the principle ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today's GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today's Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let' say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the "factual conservative dominance of our media industry" has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that's geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock's Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O'Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there's enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is "newsworthy."
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don't even challenge the assumption. (LoudDog!) Furthermore, it is under these conditions that "Liberal" has become a "dirty word" and, conversely, "Conservative" has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. (Ron and GraphicFunk, I'll grant you this point about the political labels.) So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it. (LoudDog!)
Now, here's what I wrote in another thread about the true media bias:
"[T]he media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us -- all U.S. citizens -- have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they're doing of covering substantive issues."
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Media Matters for America
* The Republican Noise Machine
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media)
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation)
* What Liberal Media?
* Manufacturing Consent (summery)
.......................................
I know that this a long post, so, first, thank you for reading it and, two, I tried to include as much as possible, while remaining digestible and general. If you're interested in more details on any of what I've written above, please do your own research... as many of you know, I'm sure, this is extremely time consuming.
.......................................
GraphicFunk,
From your syntax, I presume that English is not your first language... y me parece que estoy correcto. Eres Cubano? No, quizás de Sur América? Bueno, no importa, sinceramente no nos vemos ojo a ajo en como vemos al mundo. Tu vota por to candidato, y yo votare por el mio. If English is your first language you'll have to forgive me for presuming.
Message edited by author 2004-09-10 03:39:00.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 08:02:29 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 08:02:29 AM EDT.
|
