Comments on: New report: Number of poor kids in public schools growing fast http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/ Affecting NC public policy through informed, energetic and progressive conversations. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:14:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3681 Brian Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:05:05 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3681 If I didn't want answers to the questions - I wouldn't have asked them. So far, you've made no attempt to do so. If I didn’t want answers to the questions – I wouldn’t have asked them. So far, you’ve made no attempt to do so.

]]> By: gregflynn http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3644 gregflynn Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:50 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3644 Brian, If you think anybody believes you really want answers to your questions I've got some cousins in Nigeria you can correspond with. They found a trillion dollars in Iraq and need your help getting it back to the US. Brian, If you think anybody believes you really want answers to your questions I’ve got some cousins in Nigeria you can correspond with. They found a trillion dollars in Iraq and need your help getting it back to the US.

]]> By: Brian http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3624 Brian Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:09:58 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3624 What is "silly" is the inability to answer the primary questions mentioned in the first place. That is - how do you intend to pay for all this? How do you explain the trillions spent in the US to allegedly fight poverty resulting in stagnant or growing poverty rates? What evidence is there showing trends that nations with larger wealth redistribution experience higher rates of growth and lower poverty? Your link to the EPI data fails to address any of these questions. First off, it is merely a snapshot and misses any trendlines or overarching causation. Second, it doesn't specify as to whether the different nations use different standards for "poverty." Third, it leaves out the majority of the earth's population - much of which lives in third-world nations. Let's look at the economic institutions in the poorest nations and I suspect we will not find many beacons of capitalism. Lastly, the report loses any credibility when it claims the living standards for the "poor" in the US is lower than the "poor" in other nations - a notion that has been discredited thoroughly. What is “silly” is the inability to answer the primary questions mentioned in the first place. That is – how do you intend to pay for all this? How do you explain the trillions spent in the US to allegedly fight poverty resulting in stagnant or growing poverty rates? What evidence is there showing trends that nations with larger wealth redistribution experience higher rates of growth and lower poverty?
Your link to the EPI data fails to address any of these questions. First off, it is merely a snapshot and misses any trendlines or overarching causation. Second, it doesn’t specify as to whether the different nations use different standards for “poverty.” Third, it leaves out the majority of the earth’s population – much of which lives in third-world nations. Let’s look at the economic institutions in the poorest nations and I suspect we will not find many beacons of capitalism. Lastly, the report loses any credibility when it claims the living standards for the “poor” in the US is lower than the “poor” in other nations – a notion that has been discredited thoroughly.

]]> By: Rob Schofield http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3616 Rob Schofield Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:35:14 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3616 This'll be my last comment in this silly string, but I do urge folks to check our the following links for info about comparative poverty rates amongst wealthy industrialized countries and some ideas for how we might learn from our neighbors around the world: http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/swafacts_international.pdf http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html This’ll be my last comment in this silly string, but I do urge folks to check our the following links for info about comparative poverty rates amongst wealthy industrialized countries and some ideas for how we might learn from our neighbors around the world:

http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/swafacts_international.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

]]> By: Brian http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3613 Brian Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:33:00 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3613 I still would like to see a response to my two main questions: "How do you propose we pay for the “sustained application of new and large quantities of public resources?” and "I would like to see any research showing a correlelation of nations with higher levels of government wealth redistribution experiencing higher wealth creation and lower poverty." Neither of these have been addressed. As to this comment: "What’s clear is that an expanding economy has one reliable impact: the rich get richer. And they do so on the backs of a large and growing underclass." It makes for a nice bumper-sticker slogan, but defies logic and evidence. Check out this article: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer Some highlights: "For the most part, long-term poverty today is self-inflicted. To see this, let's examine some numbers from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of their under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment of the black population that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor..... What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. There is far less poverty in married-couple families, where presumably at least one of the spouses is employed. Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household." and.. "Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution -- middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted average income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354. The bottom line is, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer." (In other words, the "poor" have seen much greater gains than the "rich") Another point not yet addressed is that trillions of dollars in "anti-poverty" programs have failed to reduce the poverty rate. I still would like to see a response to my two main questions:
“How do you propose we pay for the “sustained application of new and large quantities of public resources?” and “I would like to see any research showing a correlelation of nations with higher levels of government wealth redistribution experiencing higher wealth creation and lower poverty.”
Neither of these have been addressed.

As to this comment: “What’s clear is that an expanding economy has one reliable impact: the rich get richer. And they do so on the backs of a large and growing underclass.” It makes for a nice bumper-sticker slogan, but defies logic and evidence. Check out this article:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer

Some highlights:
“For the most part, long-term poverty today is self-inflicted. To see this, let’s examine some numbers from the Census Bureau’s 2004 Current Population Survey. There’s one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of their under-5-year-olds are poor. There’s another segment of the black population that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor…..
What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. There is far less poverty in married-couple families, where presumably at least one of the spouses is employed. Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.”

and..

“Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution — middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted average income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354. The bottom line is, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.” (In other words, the “poor” have seen much greater gains than the “rich”)

Another point not yet addressed is that trillions of dollars in “anti-poverty” programs have failed to reduce the poverty rate.

]]> By: anglico http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3612 anglico Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:31:22 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3612 I must be missing something about the impacts of the expanding economy. From what I can tell, the economy has been generally expanding pretty steadily over the past 20 years - and so has the poverty rate. This article in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083001727.html" rel="nofollow">Washington Post</a> in 2005 tells the tale pretty simply: <blockquote>Despite robust economic growth last year, 1.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty in 2004, while household incomes stagnated and earnings fell, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 800,000, to 45.8 million. The Census Bureau's annual report on income, poverty and health insurance sheds light on voter discontent with the economy in the face of seemingly strong economic data. The broad data draw a picture of a labor market still struggling to find its footing, three years after the 2001 recession.</blockquote> What's clear is that an expanding economy has one reliable impact: the rich get richer. And they do so on the backs of a large and growing underclass. Indeed, the corporatists would appear to have a vested interest in keeping that underclass permanently in place. I must be missing something about the impacts of the expanding economy. From what I can tell, the economy has been generally expanding pretty steadily over the past 20 years – and so has the poverty rate. This article in the Washington Post in 2005 tells the tale pretty simply:

Despite robust economic growth last year, 1.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty in 2004, while household incomes stagnated and earnings fell, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 800,000, to 45.8 million.

The Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance sheds light on voter discontent with the economy in the face of seemingly strong economic data. The broad data draw a picture of a labor market still struggling to find its footing, three years after the 2001 recession.

What’s clear is that an expanding economy has one reliable impact: the rich get richer. And they do so on the backs of a large and growing underclass. Indeed, the corporatists would appear to have a vested interest in keeping that underclass permanently in place.

]]> By: Pirate http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3608 Pirate Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:16:04 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3608 Is it any wonder that the Middle Class is shrinking when the Left believes that any family that makes less than $80,000 a year is in poverty and in need of free healthcare and other government handouts yet anyone who makes more than $80,000 a year is not paying enough in taxes and are nothing but wealthy, greedy capitalists? Is it any wonder that the Middle Class is shrinking when the Left believes that any family that makes less than $80,000 a year is in poverty and in need of free healthcare and other government handouts yet anyone who makes more than $80,000 a year is not paying enough in taxes and are nothing but wealthy, greedy capitalists?

]]> By: Brian http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3607 Brian Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:14:23 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3607 Jerimee, What about the seperation of church and state? Are you a part of the "religious right?" Anyway, the best way to help the poor is to grow the economy. An expanding economy creates jobs - a stagnant economy always hurts those at the margins of employment dispraportionately. There is a reason the U.S. became the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet in less than 200 years of existence, and it's not because of government largess. Jerimee,
What about the seperation of church and state? Are you a part of the “religious right?”

Anyway, the best way to help the poor is to grow the economy. An expanding economy creates jobs – a stagnant economy always hurts those at the margins of employment dispraportionately. There is a reason the U.S. became the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet in less than 200 years of existence, and it’s not because of government largess.

]]> By: Jerimee http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3603 Jerimee Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:46:08 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3603 No doubt Brian you feel that the best way to deal with poverty is to pass out Ayn Rand novellas. Unfortunately for you, there's a slightly more popular philosophy that Americans are digging these days. It's found in the New Testament, usually summed up in these simple words: "Love thy neighbor, help the poor." There's also this little parable about some sheep and a Shepard, and one of the sheep getting lost . . . well just check out the New Testament, you'll see what I'm talking about. No doubt Brian you feel that the best way to deal with poverty is to pass out Ayn Rand novellas.

Unfortunately for you, there’s a slightly more popular philosophy that Americans are digging these days. It’s found in the New Testament, usually summed up in these simple words: “Love thy neighbor, help the poor.”

There’s also this little parable about some sheep and a Shepard, and one of the sheep getting lost . . . well just check out the New Testament, you’ll see what I’m talking about.

]]> By: Brian http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/10/30/new-report-number-of-poor-kids-in-public-schools-growing-fast/#comment-3601 Brian Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:06:08 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=685#comment-3601 I am still trying to figure out the "enormous positive impact" of anti-poverty programs when "American poverty has been rising or stagnant for several years." If poverty rates among the elderly have dropped sharply, but overall poverty rates have remained stagnant, that means there may be fewer poor elderly but more poor working-age and children. Do you have any data to back up your claims? Nevermind the fact that Social Security and Medicare present untold billions in soon-to-be realized unfunded liabilities. Furthermore, I am still curious to see any evidence of countries with larger wealth redistribution being correlated to greater prosperity. Past and current evidence points to the contrary. I am still trying to figure out the “enormous positive impact” of anti-poverty programs when “American poverty has been rising or stagnant for several years.”

If poverty rates among the elderly have dropped sharply, but overall poverty rates have remained stagnant, that means there may be fewer poor elderly but more poor working-age and children.

Do you have any data to back up your claims?
Nevermind the fact that Social Security and Medicare present untold billions in soon-to-be realized unfunded liabilities.

Furthermore, I am still curious to see any evidence of countries with larger wealth redistribution being correlated to greater prosperity. Past and current evidence points to the contrary.

]]>