US poverty level highest since the mid 1960s

[Indy]

[exploited]

[Mo~]

[Indy]

Well let me point out an example that contradicts that poor people/unemployed people are that way because they're just lacking, and that "successful people" are being punished.

The most recent economic disaster for this country was perpetrated by people who by any imaginable measure were wildly successful, and as a result millions were thrown out of work.

What did those millions do wrong? Where did they fail? Was it that they didn't have two jobs?

And in fact, they're the ones being punished for the actions of "successful" people, whereas these successful people not only faced no consequences, they received all sorts of handouts--that dwarf any being given to all the victims of these "successful" people.

So just right there is an example--a big one--of how your claim doesn't work.

I ran into a guy last night who had lost his job because his place of work burned down. Where did he fail?

If you're going to take the stance that anybody who is poor/unemployed isn't going to get any help, then own it.

But telling yourself (aka providing moral cover/comfort) that they're all failures who just didn't do things right because they're lacking? No can do.

Just come out and say the only thing that matters is if you get yours and what happens your fellow citizens: tough shit. And be done with it.

But concocting these scenarios where everybody who's fallen on hard times only has themselves to blame is pure fantasy.

[spacemonkey]

Population growth + automation expansion + finite world market/rescources + greed/corruption = today's location at the intersection of Rock and Hardplace. Fix? First you need a plan, we got nothing, and no real plan to make a plan.

[Indy]

You're right.

I don't think it's hopeless, I just think there's too many people in gov't who want it to be disparity on a third-world level (which we already have BTW). What I don't get is why.

[spacemonkey]

[The Dude]

[The Tooth]

Companies don't hire people because they have the money to pay them. They hire people because they have work that needs doing. Lower taxes do not create work that needs doing. Taxes are currently lower than a Republican snake's belly, corporate profits are at record breaking levels (my portfolio's through the roof, shame I didn't buy more stock), and yet unemployment is high. Not as high as it could be, but nonetheless high. The OP's claims are simply not supported by the facts.

Again.

[dontworrybehappy]

Wrong. Companies hire where there is a demand for their product that they cannot reach with current employment levels. When you give consumers back more of their money, they can buy more of the crap that companies make. If they buy more crap, then people need jobs to make this crap.

The only companies, or by far the companies that are posting record profits, are the oil companies whose commodity price is set on the global market. Also, companies that are making record profits are buying machines, not hiring workers. Machines are made primarily by foreign companies and are cheaper than hiring workers for that. Also, with Obamacare just around the corner, each additional worker is even MORE expensive than before.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/ar ... ot_workers

Of course this can be blamed on Obama to a point, but the cost of machines made overseas is out of his control. What is under his control is making hiring an American worker look good on the books. He can do this with tax incentives for companies that hire workers. He hasn't done that.