When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Reagan’s 30 years have of tax breaks for the rich have come home to roost. The tax breaks for the rich this past 30 years have been destroying the middle class. The middle class is now becoming the poor working class thanks to Reagan. The video is Reagan Crap.
ED
@Edward Small: Hey Ed, wanna show us where Reagan only cut taxes on the “rich?” If you’re gonna make such a stupid statement, you ought to be man enough to show some statistics to prove your claim.
Edward Small
12 years ago
Anticrocks………. I see you hid your name. ” ANTICROCKS ” ….” WHO”
I never said Reagan only cut taxs on the rich. Reagan also had to raise taxes after he did trickle down. I waited 30 years and have not seen trickle down yet. Both of the Bush’s tried to do trickle down and that never worked for them. Bush also went to war on the credit card plan. That was good planing just let the Kids pay for it. For the past 30 years Wall Street and the Corporate world have been buying up Congress. Goldman Sacks has been buying every vote they can to keep the headge fund they run paying off.
See below is what I believe in. The one on Goldman is a very good read. A little long but a good read if you want to know how Goldman screws the taxpayers of this country.
Edward Small
we all have a fictive name don’t let it worry you, we respect our identity.
you know that PRESIDENT BUSH WENT TO WAR AFTER 9/11, WITH OR WITHOUT CARD,
HE SURE HAD TO GIVE AN EXEMPLE OF THE AMERICAN COURAGE WHICH DON’T TAKE AN ATTACK ON HIS SOIL LIGHTLY FROM ANYONE
AND YOU SAID THAT GOLDEN SACHS BOUGHT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ALSO.
AND ABOUT PRESIDENT REAGAN, HE SURE HAD JOBS FOR AMERICANS DIDN’T HE?
AND WAS VERY POPULAR AND REMEMBERED WITH RESPECT,
that is more than what you can say now.
now the occupys had their say, is in there a time to go home, it’s not helping your cause by staying longer
too much anarchy setting in, and put y’all in danger.
bye
@Little Eddie: Boy when you get things wrong, you really get them wrong.
First of all, my screen name isn’t ANTICROCKS, it is anticsrocks, as in Antics Rocks. My screen name is from the rock band I managed and toured across the country. If you like it, great! If not, who gives a, well, what I mean to say is, who cares?
Then you said:
I waited 30 years and have not seen trickle down yet. Both of the Bush’s tried to do trickle down and that never worked for them.
It’s not your fault that you fall for that old liberal belief in those “evil richies” not paying their “fair share;” you just shouldn’t believe Obama’s socialist class warfare rhetoric.
During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.
The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by “the rich,” also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.
—–
Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.
The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.
A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988.This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent. – Source
Then you said:
Bush also went to war on the credit card plan. That was good planing just let the Kids pay for it.
That is a belly laugh when you look at the insane spending levels Obama has brought down on this country. So let’s take a look at the war costs and whether they were real numbers or not and also compare spending between Bush and Obama. Now this article is dated, and as we all know Obama has gone on to spend even more than what is talked about below.
* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade.
* President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added. – Source
Now as far as Goldman Sachs, I never even brought them up. If you are looking for me to defend them, you are barking up the wrong tree, Eddie. I was never in favor of the socialistic spending committed by Bush and I certainly cannot stomach the way that Obama has quadrupled down on it.
In my book, none of the companies should have been bailed out. I think that if the Wall Street investment firms and big banks were still owned by partners and not established as corporations then the powers that be would be a whole lot more careful in the way they do business.
.
.
Edward Small
hi,
who is Rachel Maddow, anyway? does she come from the location where the OWLS roamed,
what make her credible, to the public who are sick and tired of some who demonize a special person who did well when he rose in power, not so real today from who is in his seat now.
bye
Edward Small
12 years ago
This is a good read on Reagan and his tax cut on the rich and then his tax increases 11 time after he saw how he had screwed up. I hope you do not have to ask who is the ROLLINGSTONE mag. is.
Edward Small
hi,
and who is the ROLLINGSTONE mag?
IS HE also one of the OWLS DEFECATING ON POLICE CAR? WHILE PLAYING HIS GUITAR,
NOT CREDIBLE ENOUGH, BECAUSE IT’S not AMERICAN, and
Those BRITISH never got over the fact of loosing AMERICA, BY A SMALL GROUP OF AMERICANS, just ask our GAFFAW UK.
so they will say anything against a past PRESIDENT WHO DID A LOT OF GOOD FOR HIS BELOVED COUNTRY,
that was when the RICH WHERE RESPECTED AND APPRECIATED FOR CREATING AND GIVING JOBS TO THE PEOPLE
bye
@Little Eddie: You are going to have to do a bit better than that. While you use far left media sources for evidence against a Conservative President, I have cited The Joint Economic Committee of Congress and now I will cite Dr. Steve Horwitz of Saint Lawrence University. It is a short, informative video and I urge you to watch it, Eddie and explain to me how Dr. Horwitz is wrong.
Could one of the moderators please embed this video?
[So sorry for the delay, anticsrocks! Mata]
To turn to a political hack like Rachel Madcow and a liberal rag like the Rolling Stones magazine for economic lessons is like turning to Barack Obama for lessons in how to be transparent…
anticsrocks
hi,
I really like the link, so what do the owls complain about the rich,
because the RICH are not getting richer fast, but it’s the poor who get rich faster,
and while the owls are protesting against the RICH, it was found that many new rich where the poor like them some few years before, which mean the owls are protesting against their own poor and some of them will also become the future RICH,
the owl should go home and try their luck at getting rich instead of wasting time in those parks where they don’t look good at all.
thank you for that very interesting smart link
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: You hit the nail on the head, beezy. When the liberals and leftys spout their income inequality they conveniently forget to mention that income statistics are not a static thing, but a fluid thing.
ANTICSROCK
THE OWL SHOULD NOW THANK THE RICH BEING THE CAUSE OF THEIR SURPLUS REVENUE
FOR DOING NOTHING WHILE THE RICH WORK FOR IT.
THE OWLS WHERE LED INTO LIES AGAIN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE DEPICTING THE RICH,
NOW THEY ARE LOSING THEIR COVERS, IT’S ALL IN THE OPEN,
THEY LIED TO THE OWLS AND SEND THEM PROTESTING A BUNCH OF LIES,
I KNEW WE WOULD FIND IT SOONER OR LATER,
Here below is new data as of Nov. 21,2011. I noted the HORWITZ video had data going back to 1975 and 1979 I do not see how old data has any bearing on todays poor and near poor. I did note in his video that the one percent more than doubled their wealth. But HORWITZ hid that by putting the one percent in with the 20% of the wealthy. I do not like fact like 400 people in America own 40 % of America wealth and many of them pay no or little in taxes. I also want you to know I voted for Reagan. I was one of the many who was taken in by the smooth talker. I have been here to long and seen too much to ever let it happen again.
BELOW IS THE NEW CENSUS DATA
NEW CENSUS DATA Show Many in Middle Class Are ‘Near Poor’
by Adele Stan, Nov 21, 2011
When the U.S. Census Bureau retooled its formula for determining the number of poor people living in the United States, the number the bureau estimated to be living in poverty shot up from 46.1 million to 49.1 million. Now that reformulation is shining a light on the vast numbers of people who appear to be middle class but who actually fall into a category called the “near poor.”
The new numbers reveal a grim portrait of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, often without access to health care, many behind the middle-class exterior of a suburban home. According to the new data, some 51 million Americans receive incomes that are just 50 percent higher than the official poverty line—a figure that is 76 percent higher than the previous measure, according to The New York Times, which reports:
All told, that places 100 million people—one in three Americans—either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.
Roughly half of the people who fall into the “near poor” category live in the suburbs, and half live in households headed by a married couple. A sizable number—28 percent—work full time.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers continue to refuse to raise taxes on the richest Americans, who pay a much smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class taxpayers. Among the expenses now calculated as part of the new poverty formulation—expenses previously omitted under the old formula—is an individual’s tax burden. After adding that, along with the cost of medical expenses, transportation and other life necessities into the formula, the numbers for those in the “near poor” category exploded.
The new numbers on the “near poor” have yet to be published by the Census Bureau. The numbers were crunched at the request of the Times, whose editorial staff suspected a larger story lurked in the new numbers. But the results, the paper reports, shocked even the Census Bureau’s chief poverty statistician, Trudi J. Renwick, who said:
These numbers are higher than we anticipated. There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.
As we reported last week, among the findings yielded by the new formula, which takes into account the cost of taxes, medical care and housing, was a higher level of poverty among Americans above the age of 65 than had been previously thought: 16 percent.
SEARCH
New Census Data Show Many in Middle Class Are ‘Near Poor’
by Adele Stan, Nov 21, 2011
When the U.S. Census Bureau retooled its formula for determining the number of poor people living in the United States, the number the bureau estimated to be living in poverty shot up from 46.1 million to 49.1 million. Now that reformulation is shining a light on the vast numbers of people who appear to be middle class but who actually fall into a category called the “near poor.”
The new numbers reveal a grim portrait of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, often without access to health care, many behind the middle-class exterior of a suburban home. According to the new data, some 51 million Americans receive incomes that are just 50 percent higher than the official poverty line—a figure that is 76 percent higher than the previous measure, according to The New York Times, which reports:
All told, that places 100 million people—one in three Americans—either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.
The new numbers on the “near poor” have yet to be published by the Census Bureau. The numbers were crunched at the request of the Times, whose editorial staff suspected a larger story lurked in the new numbers. But the results, the paper reports, shocked even the Census Bureau’s chief poverty statistician, Trudi J. Renwick, who said:
These numbers are higher than we anticipated. There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.
As we reported last week, among the findings yielded by the new formula, which takes into account the cost of taxes, medical care and housing, was a higher level of poverty among Americans above the age of 65 than had been previously thought: 16 percent.
Edward Small
hi,
yes , that’s why , this HAS TO CHANGE, AND A NEW LEADER must take over to fix that,
a leader who know the problem and know the solution too,
this leadership lack of the ability to do it at the present time, and in the last 3 years, they did anything out of AMERICA, and nothing in AMERICA, that is what you see now.
which is nothing good
bye
@Edward Small: I am not impressed with your source; a HuffPo blogger is not an economist.
And before you go spouting those “new” poverty level stats, you might want to consider this:
The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that “the poor will always be with you,” no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms. – Source
Now to the credibility of my source?
Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.
Dubbed the “intellectual godfather” of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Rector concentrates on a range of issues relating to welfare reform, family breakdown and America’s various social ills.
Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training for their benefits. Since its passage, though, Rector has continued to conduct extensive research on the economic costs of welfare and its role in undermining families. – Source
At this point, allow me to quote Aye –
“Thanks for playing!”
ash
12 years ago
You people need to get out off your hick town and explore different countries and see what’s really going on. Lol
Awesome video, very creative and very true. Thanks for posting, Curt!
CURT quite well done
thank you
Reagan’s 30 years have of tax breaks for the rich have come home to roost. The tax breaks for the rich this past 30 years have been destroying the middle class. The middle class is now becoming the poor working class thanks to Reagan. The video is Reagan Crap.
ED
@Edward Small: Hey Ed, wanna show us where Reagan only cut taxes on the “rich?” If you’re gonna make such a stupid statement, you ought to be man enough to show some statistics to prove your claim.
Anticrocks………. I see you hid your name. ” ANTICROCKS ” ….” WHO”
I never said Reagan only cut taxs on the rich. Reagan also had to raise taxes after he did trickle down. I waited 30 years and have not seen trickle down yet. Both of the Bush’s tried to do trickle down and that never worked for them. Bush also went to war on the credit card plan. That was good planing just let the Kids pay for it. For the past 30 years Wall Street and the Corporate world have been buying up Congress. Goldman Sacks has been buying every vote they can to keep the headge fund they run paying off.
See below is what I believe in. The one on Goldman is a very good read. A little long but a good read if you want to know how Goldman screws the taxpayers of this country.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/goldman_sachs_prospers_at_taxp.html
Edward Small
we all have a fictive name don’t let it worry you, we respect our identity.
you know that PRESIDENT BUSH WENT TO WAR AFTER 9/11, WITH OR WITHOUT CARD,
HE SURE HAD TO GIVE AN EXEMPLE OF THE AMERICAN COURAGE WHICH DON’T TAKE AN ATTACK ON HIS SOIL LIGHTLY FROM ANYONE
AND YOU SAID THAT GOLDEN SACHS BOUGHT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ALSO.
AND ABOUT PRESIDENT REAGAN, HE SURE HAD JOBS FOR AMERICANS DIDN’T HE?
AND WAS VERY POPULAR AND REMEMBERED WITH RESPECT,
that is more than what you can say now.
now the occupys had their say, is in there a time to go home, it’s not helping your cause by staying longer
too much anarchy setting in, and put y’all in danger.
bye
@Little Eddie: Boy when you get things wrong, you really get them wrong.
First of all, my screen name isn’t ANTICROCKS, it is anticsrocks, as in Antics Rocks. My screen name is from the rock band I managed and toured across the country. If you like it, great! If not, who gives a, well, what I mean to say is, who cares?
Then you said:
It’s not your fault that you fall for that old liberal belief in those “evil richies” not paying their “fair share;” you just shouldn’t believe Obama’s socialist class warfare rhetoric.
Then you said:
That is a belly laugh when you look at the insane spending levels Obama has brought down on this country. So let’s take a look at the war costs and whether they were real numbers or not and also compare spending between Bush and Obama. Now this article is dated, and as we all know Obama has gone on to spend even more than what is talked about below.
Now as far as Goldman Sachs, I never even brought them up. If you are looking for me to defend them, you are barking up the wrong tree, Eddie. I was never in favor of the socialistic spending committed by Bush and I certainly cannot stomach the way that Obama has quadrupled down on it.
In my book, none of the companies should have been bailed out. I think that if the Wall Street investment firms and big banks were still owned by partners and not established as corporations then the powers that be would be a whole lot more careful in the way they do business.
.
.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-ronald-reagans-failed-trickl
Rachel Maddow on Ronald Reagan’s Failed Trickle-Down Voodoo Economics
… the Republican
This is how I see Ronald Regan’s Economics. KISS keep it simple
Edward Small
hi,
who is Rachel Maddow, anyway? does she come from the location where the OWLS roamed,
what make her credible, to the public who are sick and tired of some who demonize a special person who did well when he rose in power, not so real today from who is in his seat now.
bye
This is a good read on Reagan and his tax cut on the rich and then his tax increases 11 time after he saw how he had screwed up. I hope you do not have to ask who is the ROLLINGSTONE mag. is.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
Edward Small
hi,
and who is the ROLLINGSTONE mag?
IS HE also one of the OWLS DEFECATING ON POLICE CAR? WHILE PLAYING HIS GUITAR,
NOT CREDIBLE ENOUGH, BECAUSE IT’S not AMERICAN, and
Those BRITISH never got over the fact of loosing AMERICA, BY A SMALL GROUP OF AMERICANS, just ask our GAFFAW UK.
so they will say anything against a past PRESIDENT WHO DID A LOT OF GOOD FOR HIS BELOVED COUNTRY,
that was when the RICH WHERE RESPECTED AND APPRECIATED FOR CREATING AND GIVING JOBS TO THE PEOPLE
bye
@Little Eddie: You are going to have to do a bit better than that. While you use far left media sources for evidence against a Conservative President, I have cited The Joint Economic Committee of Congress and now I will cite Dr. Steve Horwitz of Saint Lawrence University. It is a short, informative video and I urge you to watch it, Eddie and explain to me how Dr. Horwitz is wrong.
Could one of the moderators please embed this video?
[So sorry for the delay, anticsrocks! Mata]
To turn to a political hack like Rachel Madcow and a liberal rag like the Rolling Stones magazine for economic lessons is like turning to Barack Obama for lessons in how to be transparent…
anticsrocks
hi,
I really like the link, so what do the owls complain about the rich,
because the RICH are not getting richer fast, but it’s the poor who get rich faster,
and while the owls are protesting against the RICH, it was found that many new rich where the poor like them some few years before, which mean the owls are protesting against their own poor and some of them will also become the future RICH,
the owl should go home and try their luck at getting rich instead of wasting time in those parks where they don’t look good at all.
thank you for that very interesting smart link
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: You hit the nail on the head, beezy. When the liberals and leftys spout their income inequality they conveniently forget to mention that income statistics are not a static thing, but a fluid thing.
ANTICSROCK
THE OWL SHOULD NOW THANK THE RICH BEING THE CAUSE OF THEIR SURPLUS REVENUE
FOR DOING NOTHING WHILE THE RICH WORK FOR IT.
THE OWLS WHERE LED INTO LIES AGAIN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE DEPICTING THE RICH,
NOW THEY ARE LOSING THEIR COVERS, IT’S ALL IN THE OPEN,
THEY LIED TO THE OWLS AND SEND THEM PROTESTING A BUNCH OF LIES,
I KNEW WE WOULD FIND IT SOONER OR LATER,
Thanks Mata!
Thanks for the assist, Mata!
HORWITZ NEED AN UPDATE THE POOR IN AMERICA
Here below is new data as of Nov. 21,2011. I noted the HORWITZ video had data going back to 1975 and 1979 I do not see how old data has any bearing on todays poor and near poor. I did note in his video that the one percent more than doubled their wealth. But HORWITZ hid that by putting the one percent in with the 20% of the wealthy. I do not like fact like 400 people in America own 40 % of America wealth and many of them pay no or little in taxes. I also want you to know I voted for Reagan. I was one of the many who was taken in by the smooth talker. I have been here to long and seen too much to ever let it happen again.
BELOW IS THE NEW CENSUS DATA
NEW CENSUS DATA Show Many in Middle Class Are ‘Near Poor’
by Adele Stan, Nov 21, 2011
When the U.S. Census Bureau retooled its formula for determining the number of poor people living in the United States, the number the bureau estimated to be living in poverty shot up from 46.1 million to 49.1 million. Now that reformulation is shining a light on the vast numbers of people who appear to be middle class but who actually fall into a category called the “near poor.”
The new numbers reveal a grim portrait of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, often without access to health care, many behind the middle-class exterior of a suburban home. According to the new data, some 51 million Americans receive incomes that are just 50 percent higher than the official poverty line—a figure that is 76 percent higher than the previous measure, according to The New York Times, which reports:
All told, that places 100 million people—one in three Americans—either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.
Roughly half of the people who fall into the “near poor” category live in the suburbs, and half live in households headed by a married couple. A sizable number—28 percent—work full time.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers continue to refuse to raise taxes on the richest Americans, who pay a much smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class taxpayers. Among the expenses now calculated as part of the new poverty formulation—expenses previously omitted under the old formula—is an individual’s tax burden. After adding that, along with the cost of medical expenses, transportation and other life necessities into the formula, the numbers for those in the “near poor” category exploded.
The new numbers on the “near poor” have yet to be published by the Census Bureau. The numbers were crunched at the request of the Times, whose editorial staff suspected a larger story lurked in the new numbers. But the results, the paper reports, shocked even the Census Bureau’s chief poverty statistician, Trudi J. Renwick, who said:
These numbers are higher than we anticipated. There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.
As we reported last week, among the findings yielded by the new formula, which takes into account the cost of taxes, medical care and housing, was a higher level of poverty among Americans above the age of 65 than had been previously thought: 16 percent.
SEARCH
New Census Data Show Many in Middle Class Are ‘Near Poor’
by Adele Stan, Nov 21, 2011
When the U.S. Census Bureau retooled its formula for determining the number of poor people living in the United States, the number the bureau estimated to be living in poverty shot up from 46.1 million to 49.1 million. Now that reformulation is shining a light on the vast numbers of people who appear to be middle class but who actually fall into a category called the “near poor.”
The new numbers reveal a grim portrait of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, often without access to health care, many behind the middle-class exterior of a suburban home. According to the new data, some 51 million Americans receive incomes that are just 50 percent higher than the official poverty line—a figure that is 76 percent higher than the previous measure, according to The New York Times, which reports:
All told, that places 100 million people—one in three Americans—either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.
The new numbers on the “near poor” have yet to be published by the Census Bureau. The numbers were crunched at the request of the Times, whose editorial staff suspected a larger story lurked in the new numbers. But the results, the paper reports, shocked even the Census Bureau’s chief poverty statistician, Trudi J. Renwick, who said:
These numbers are higher than we anticipated. There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.
As we reported last week, among the findings yielded by the new formula, which takes into account the cost of taxes, medical care and housing, was a higher level of poverty among Americans above the age of 65 than had been previously thought: 16 percent.
Edward Small
hi,
yes , that’s why , this HAS TO CHANGE, AND A NEW LEADER must take over to fix that,
a leader who know the problem and know the solution too,
this leadership lack of the ability to do it at the present time, and in the last 3 years, they did anything out of AMERICA, and nothing in AMERICA, that is what you see now.
which is nothing good
bye
I like STEVE WINN, he speak his mind,
not more not less
@Edward Small: I am not impressed with your source; a HuffPo blogger is not an economist.
And before you go spouting those “new” poverty level stats, you might want to consider this:
Now to the credibility of my source?
At this point, allow me to quote Aye –
“Thanks for playing!”
You people need to get out off your hick town and explore different countries and see what’s really going on. Lol
@ash: Aw, now don’t go makin’ as ash outta yourself.
Oops! Too late.
ash
you’re not part of “you people” ?
which part are you? and what is your point?
expand it