Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 03, 2007
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
To reduce poverty, create more jobs
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- Labor Day is a time to reflect on the economic well-being of the American worker, an issue on which our nation is deeply divided -- between those who say we've never had it so good and those who complain that things have never been worse.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere between these two poles of thought.

Financially, most Americans are doing well -- indeed, they say this about themselves in most surveys -- but there are a lot of economic problems in our economy that still need fixing.

Even in the midst of the housing market's downturn, most Americans own their own homes -- nearly 70 percent -- more than ever before in our history. Fifty percent own them outright. Moreover, despite the decline in housing values in some regions, most Americans have seen the value of their homes climb to record highs.

Owing to 401(k)s, IRAs and other tax-free savings plans, more than half of all Americans own stocks, a historic level of corporate ownership in equities that cuts across most income levels.

The U.S. Census Bureau came out with its annual figures last week that reported two other positive economic trends: The poverty rate fell last year for the first time in 10 years and median household income, when adjusted for inflation, increased for the second consecutive year.

While median income -- meaning, half make more and half make less -- rose to $48,201, it still has not climbed back to its pre-recession high of 1999 just before the tech market tanked.

Many tend to think of the poverty rate as a static pool of people, when in reality it is more fluid than that, with people rising out of poverty or falling into it due to family breakups, divorce, job losses or some other economic catastrophe.

In this case, the Census Bureau analysis said the rise in median income was largely due to the jump in the number of people who obtained full-time jobs. It further noted that the poorest households showed the largest gain in incomes.

The chief reason: job creation. Unemployment has fallen over the past seven years and is down to 4.6 percent of the eligible workforce. More Americans are working now than at any other time in our history. A majority of the states have jobless rates of less than 3 percent to 4 percent.

Note to policymakers: The best way to reduce poverty is to expand the economy and create more jobs.

Critics point to the wide disparity of incomes in our country -- or what they call "income inequality." The Washington Post, in a fit of class envy, reported, "The share of income going to the 5 percent of households with the highest incomes has never been greater."

But instead of concentrating on how much wealth, investments and savings people at the higher-income scale have accumulated, we should be focusing on how to open up opportunities for wealth creation among those at the median-income level or below. There are a number of ways to help workers save, invest and earn more income. Here are a few:

Stop taxing the interest on ordinary savings (outside of IRAs and other tax-free methods), and start offering paycheck mechanisms for workers to save more. One proposal sitting on the back burners in Congress would establish automatic savings accounts that small businesses would offer to any worker they hire. The money would be automatically withheld, as employers do now for payroll taxes, and deposited into a special tax-free account that each employee would own and take with them whenever they change jobs.

Notably, the idea of establishing universal IRA-style savings accounts for all workers cuts across ideological lines. Both the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institution are jointly promoting the idea. It is estimated that tens of millions of workers who now save nothing would see their automatic savings accounts grow substantially over their working lives, helping to narrow the wealth and income gap.

The reason wealthier people are wealthy is because they own stocks and bonds. More Americans below the median-income levels can own stocks and bonds, too, if we let them put a small portion of their Social Security withholding into personal-investment accounts, as President Bush has proposed.

Here's another idea being pushed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney:

Abolish the capital-gains tax on stocks and dividends for people in the bottom tax brackets to encourage them to invest and keep more of their gains.

Actually, the capital-gains tax should be abolished for everyone because it has been achieved with money that was already taxed as income, but that faces huge political obstacles from the pro-tax, anti-growth Democrats in Congress. But I'll bet even Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, would support Romney's plan for his Harlem, N.Y., constituents.

Many, if not most, American workers are doing well in this economy. But there are too many who aren't because of tax and regulatory obstacles to higher rates of economic expansion, job growth and savings needed to create wealth and boost incomes.

The next great worker-reform movement will demand that we tear down these obstacles to those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Need to bring back the production jobs
We should bring back some of those easy to get & not too hard to do manufacturing jobs! They got outsourced to China & a few other countries when it would be in our best interests to have those jobs here. Used to be able to walk into a cotton mill & come back out employed. They passed you a W2 with your application. They ran three shifts so usually there was something available. Now that these jobs have been outsourced it makes it difficult to find anything when seeking another job. This 'globalization' has turned out to be more problem than it's worth!

Cooltruth, you're right
But the largest part of the problem that pushed a lot of those jobs overseas was Government intervention, or regulations.
Thye just decided that they knew better than the business owners how to make the business profitable. As a result of their interference all that happened is their regulations drove the costs of doing business steadily upwards.

The second largest contributor to manufacturers going overseas is UNIONS.
When they first started a lot of employers were actually taking unfair advantage of a lot of their employees and the unions helped stop that.
Buty over the years they have gotten to be more and more of a drain on the employers with their every larger wage and benefit demands.
Do you know that the first $1500-$2500 of the price of each new car coming off a Big Three assembly line goes to cover retirement benefits to auto workers that have been retired for up to a decade, sometimes longer.
Then there's the constant pay raises that are always accompanied by an equal boost in union dues, which, combined with higher taxes on the higher wages eats up almost the entire pay increase.

Stop the vicious cycle there and we could possibly see some of those jobs coming back to our to our shores.

There is *SO* much wrong with this...
--
...that I'm damned if I know where to begin.

I suppose the fundamental stupidity of Mr. Lambro shows up - diamond hard - right here:

"Note to policymakers: The best way to reduce poverty is to expand the economy and create more jobs."

Wonderful. Except that "policymakers" - i.e., government wonks, weenies, bureaucrats, politicians and their Beltway Bandit hangers-on - do nothing productive in the economy in any significant fashion whatsoever.

They don't "create more jobs," Mr. Lambro (you flaming idiot).

They *DESTROY* jobs.

Every exertion of a supposedly "disinterested" third party in economic transactions degrades the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. It raises the costs for the real participants, reduces the values they derive from the interaction, and beats the living hell out of each such transaction's potential to create value for anybody.

What part of this is so complicated, Mr. Lambro, that you can't see it until I slam your head into it?

The "policymakers" can help to reduce poverty in America by following a policy of shutting up, standing down, and getting to hellangone out of the way.



--
"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop."

..-- P.J. O'Rourke
7


Simple
The government can enforce it's own laws and stop the hiring of illegals. That would be, conservatively, 4-5M jobs without any new government programs. It would also reduce the stress on our medical systems, social services, schools, etc.

Mr. Lambro
I hope you don't actually believe that census report. Sure, it was good news and it refutes some of the propaganda that the lying Dems spew everyday. The problems is that it doesn't go half far enough. The census report include Hispanics and not only do they artificially depress the averages for wage in the report, but they also depress the wages overall. After all, if you are a building contractor and you have an American worker who will do routine carpentry for $12.00/hr and you have an illegal who will do the same for $5.00/hr, who are you going to hire? If you are worried about the ICE man coming and fining you you may hire the American depending on how much profit you are making (the fines are not that high). The truth is, up until a few weeks ago you didn’t have to worry about ICE. The laws have not been enforced since the last Kennedy Bill with amnesty.

http://www.thestate.com/news/story/160011.html

So bottom line, if the government, including the lying Dems, really wanted to "reduce poverty" for actual working Americans they would start enforcing the border. Instead they allow the border to run wild and embrace the unions. That is a prescription for failure.

Flame
BINGO!

And anyone on welfare who is physically and mentally sound can take the job they're offered by the state. If they refuse, the check gets cut off. Chances are, they'd find a better job ASAP, like they could have ALL ALONG!

SJ Doc
Lambro knows full well what government interference does to the economy. He has written extensively on the subject and is an advocate of less government. He is saying to the policy makers that the way to reduce poverty is through job creation by the private sector and not through government programs.

It must be left to the individuals involved in business what is the best course of action concerning capital investment and employment needs. Those calling for policies to 'bring back manufacturing' are confusing jobs with production. If all you want is to create a lot of jobs the simple thing to do is outlaw heavy equipment and start moving dirt and stone by hand.

Manufacturing as a share of our GDP has remained fairly stable over the years even as the number of manufacturing jobs decreased. Economies must have the flexibility to adapt and that adaptation is guided by the 'Invisible Hand'. The hand has dictated that the number of people needed in manufacturing has decreased. Just as the hand destroyed the jobs of buggywhip makers and typewriter repairmen it has created millions of new jobs.

Given the advances in the technology of manufacturing it should come as no surprise that China has lost millions of manufacturing jobs over the past few years. If they don't wise up and start producing consistently safe products the market will dictate that they lose a lot more.

GunnyG
I did that trick with my youngest sister when she and her child came to live with me; she had lost a job due to her mistaken impression that she was the boss and not an employee, and she said she was going to take her time looking for another one. Big Sis immediately said she was not either going to do that; she was going right out and get another job. After accusing me of sounding like Mama, she went out and got another job within 4 days. People who have someone standing behind them tapping their feet are able to do what they never thought they would do.

Incidentally, for those who whine that there are NO GOOD JOBS available, the firm I work for could hire forty new secretaries tomorrow if they could find them. Yes, I said forty. Because of the Have A Baby Get A Year Off With Pay Law, we are desperately short of entry level secretaries because the forty we had are all at desks where Mommies ought to be. But you cannot get anybody to take a job as a Legal Secretary nowadays because it is hard, exacting work with flexible hours and overtime, that is it does not allow you to run for the door at 5:00 or take time off in the middle of the day to breast feed, to take Junior to hockey practice or to supervise your husbands cocktail party. (And yes to the whining menfolk, we would hire men for those jobs, which pay enough for you to raise a family on if you manage your money properly. Come and apply. Operators standing by.)

IMO there are plenty of jobs available; there are just too many people who want to be paid a lot of money for doing no work.

TruLib - obliged
--
Beyond the present article (above), I'm not familiar with Mr. Lambro, who - despite your explanation - looks entirely too goddam Keynesian to suit my hard-won Pelerinistic preferences.

Though I'm familiar with the positive aspects of the transition from a production-based economy to a service economy (just as we saw the growth of real wealth in the transition from an agrarian to an industrialized production society in the early 19th Century), the majority of Republicrat readers and commentators in this forum do not, and I compliment you on your explanation.




--
"A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society.

"Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings."

..-- Ludwig von Mises

The US has a definition of poverty
that I believe differs from the rest of the world. We tend to call "poverty" those without the same tangible results of others, and yet never factor in personal choice. Of course changes have needed to be made over time since the start of this country, and they HAVE been made. At this time in history, America offers the most chances for upward mobility to the most people- that is the best any civilization can do.
Unfortunately, the movement toward socialism is creating a climate in which upward mobility is more difficult for the hardworking, as they are keeping less of what is earned. I can assure you that many of those in what I call institutionalized poverty are doing nothing but having babies, expecting that government check (checks, in most cases), complaining about the schools, hospitals, employers who expect them to show up and work, and their cell phone service. We've moved from social assistance to socialism/enabling, and it exascerbates the problem of "poverty" in America.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS



George Bush’s $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich over the past 6½ years has been a disaster for average Americans. Supply-side (trickle-down) economics is a bogus theory promoted by those who benefit from it. In a mature capitalist system, supply side never rules, it’s always the demand side of the equation that governs growth and well-being. Think about the 1930s Depression, General Motors had plenty of supply, but demand evaporated.

Previous U.S. economic downturns have been cured with only $200 billion in tax cuts targeted to the middle class, because the consumer (the great middle class) spends that tax cut and primes the economic pump. But George Bush has raised the debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay from almost $6 trillion to almost $9 trillion for current economic growth, which is largely without wage gains, and which has shrunk the middle class that makes America strong and great.

Corporations (the supply side) are now loaded with cash, but there’s no place to spend it because they don’t see any demand. So many corporations are using that cash to buy back their stock – WOW, isn’t supply side wonderful in how it fulfills America’s needs? Meanwhile, the middle class is almost tapped out, as home values (most of their net worth and the credit card of last resort) are stagnant or falling in price, and a significant number of holdholds are headed for foreclosure. As the rich-poor divide increases, we’re headed toward previous shining examples of trickle-down economics: South America of the recent past and feudalism in the Middle Ages (South America and feudalism also had no wage gains).

Supply-side economics has sold our kids and grandkids down the river! Short term, Bush’s economic policies may lead to recession, as the engine of growth is slowly being squeezed and damaged.

A Few Things to Clean Up
Associating politicians and jobs is obviously wrong and I think that Lambro didn't intend that. Using Mitt Romney's name to make a point about his intention is foolish and questionable. He could not get that done with the probable Demo Congress. Lambro, it is not necessary to dilute your message by citing the intentions of a politician. Charlie Rangel vote to eliminate the capital gains tax? I doubt that he would step into that one.

Poverty will always be here
As long as the definition of poverty is the lowest Xth percentile of incomes, it will be mathematically impossible to eliminate. All that changes is the income level of those in that cohort. If the govt provided every houshold a minimum income of 100K, for example, there would still be that bottom percentile of incomes. I find it very interesting that whatever official definition exists, it's made by those whose employment depends on the perpetuation of govt "anti-poverty" programs. Reminds me of Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles - "Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs!"

AudiR10
It also worked in the Corps for miscreants who doped off at work and suddenly found themselves mowing grass, painting rocks, picking up butts, trash, etc. Magically, they BEG to come back to work!

JohnCitizen
Thank you for that wonderful talking point from the lamocrat party. Fortunately for the US it has been proven to an outright lie over and over again.

Just repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true and neither does shouting it louder..

Vic
The "lamocrats" as you call them (well done) use the Big Lie technique founded by Stalin/Hitler.

That is, they tell a whopper so HUGE that people think that it MUST BE TRUE since it's so outlandish.

moonbat exterminator
you are exactly right.

While at a park yesterday, I met a lady from eastern Africa. She is a fascinating, smart, hard working person who moved here LEGALLY 10 years ago. This lady first lived in Newark, NJ, and had PLENTY to say about "poverty" in America and "African" Americans. Her position is that American poor are making their own problems through laziness and she believes welfare receipients should be sent to live in Africa for one month to live as average African does. This woman has overcome unbelievable obstacles to get here and knows what she has here. What a delight!

An interesting aside- she said Katrina victims had more resources at their disposal after the hurricane than the average African. I never thought of that.

Poverty Indicator
In America the best indicator is obesity. The overweight individual hasn't enough money to afford a health club membership.

Poverty American Style
The poor in America

99% have telephones
99% have indoor plumbing
95% have color TV- most w/cable or satellite service
92% have refrigerators
67% have at least one automobile
live in homes that have more sq feet than middle class domeciles in almost any European big city
The list goes on, but you get the idea.

Poverty
Those on the dole, poverty, didn`t do what needed to be done early in life. There is no free lunch, regardless what the Liberals tell us. It does cost someone. Poverty levels are so high that its hard not to bel classed as being in it.If the government would stay out of personal so called problems, the people would work it out, better.

When I do home visits, I have yet
to go into a poor person's home that doesn't, at this time, have a large plasma screen TV or at very least a large flat screen. All too often the house or apartment is a disaster, but there is the TV, Play Station, surround sound, etc... This is not a myth- ask any career social worker, don't take my word for it. They can't afford school clothes for the kids, vaccinations/health care, food (but are most often quite fat), or any other essential- but entertainment/pamper items ( alcohol,manicures, tattoos, sometimes cosmetic surgery, etc...) are afforded.

SJ Doc & Moonbat, preach on brothers.

Let me add a couple more thoughts.

Lambro says we need to reduce poverty and the rich are such because of stocks and bonds. Actually they both are what they are because of behavior traits. Poverty and bonds are merely the results of the person’s behavior. People have a right to behave in a manner they choose and be poor or rich and the giver-ment has no right to interfere with their choice.

Another thought is that AmeriKans don’t save because after the giver-ment inflates and taxes there is no benefit to savings. They are acting rationally by working less and/or spending all they earn rather than loose buying power by saving.

Reducing taxes on savings for the poor is merely another Marxist entitlement. The better solution is take away all giver-ment entitlements and also reduce giver-ment by 75%.

SJ Doc & Moonbat preach on brothers.

Let me add a couple more thoughts.

Lambro says that we need to reduce poverty and that the rich are such because of stocks and bonds. Actually they both are what they are because of behavior traits. Poverty and bonds are merely the result of the person’s behavior. People have a right to behave in a manner they choose and the giver-ment has no right to interfere with their choice.

Also AmeriKans don’t save because after the giver-ment inflates and taxes there is no benefit to savings. They are acting rationally by working less or spending all they earn rather than loose buying power by saving.

However reducing taxes on savings for the poor is merely another Marxist entitlement. The better solution is take away all giver-ment entitlements and also reduce giver-ment by 75%.

Dr. Milton Friedman
Dr. Friedman had a saying;"A Politician Will do Anything to Maintain;His Power,Policies,and Prestige".Poverty has been apart of the American Economy,since it was created by Politicians in the 1880's.All jobs were the result of Political connections during this "TIME".Politicians used this method to affect their "POWER".It assured a certain number of votes!Fast-Forward and you will see that very little has changed.In fact, you see a transition from one delusion to another.First they made people think that they had the power to eliminate poverty.Today, they have tricked people into thinking, that they can Cause and Cure "POVERTY".The truth is, they can do neither!If you remember Adam Smith,and understood his theories,you would know, that "PEOPLE" are the only source of ECONOMIC POWER!!Do the "PEOPLE", have a cure for their "OWN" predicament?UMMMMM

Lambro mistake
The poverty rate fell for the first time in ten years? Where do you come up with these figures, Lame-bro? Karl Rove? In fact, you imbecile, the report said “this decade” not the last ten years. “This decade” starts with 2000. What an idiot.

For the reality based community, below are the poverty rates from the bureau of census for the last ten years. ..and of course, it completely refutes Lambro’s assertion.

1996 13.7
1997 13.3
1998 12.7
1999 11.9
2000 11.3
2001 11.7
2002 12.1
2003 12.5
2004 12.7
2005 12.6
2006 12.3

to AudiR10
"Incidentally, for those who whine that there are NO GOOD JOBS available, the firm I work for could hire forty new secretaries tomorrow if they could find them. Yes, I said forty."

ECON 101: Increase wages, and employees will come.

The other problem: " it is hard, exacting work with flexible hours and overtime,". Given a choice between a job with set hours and no mandatory overtime, most workers would choose that over one that you describe. However, a greater wage would compensate for the additional burdens placed.

Perhaps the problem with filling those jobs is that the wage offered do not compensate for the skills and working conditions of the job???

oldsocialworker
Well, it's a hard job being owned by the government and these people DESERVE to have everything the working people have. Never mind that they have four or five broken bicycles in the back yard that some church group gave them because their children were so under privileged because they're POOR. And they are POOR, POOR in spirit.

More deceit from Lambro
He states,"Unemployment has fallen over the past seven years and is down to 4.6 percent of the eligible workforce."

See chart below from census bureau. I would hardly describe this as having simply "fallen over the past seven years." Ideological commitment is a scary thing. To quote George Orwell, " Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "

2000 3.9%
2001 4.8%
2002 5.9%
2003 6.3%
2004 5.6%
2005 5.1%
2006 4.6%
2007 4.6% (average through January)

Book TV alert on economic freedom
Check it out. John Lott will be talking about his book and Bruce Caldwell will be talking about Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" on C-SPAN 2 today. Times are EDT:

Long live American freedom!

5:00 PM 58 min Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't
Author: John Lott

6:00 PM 48 min The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents
Author: Bruce Caldwell

http://www.booktv.org/schedule.aspx

Down with capital-gains tax
Lambro is correct. The capital-gains tax was an attempt by liberals to "soak the rich." All it does is penalize investment and keep middle class people from becoming wealthy. The truly wealthy have accountants and financial planners who enable them to avoid paying any of that tax.

In economics "soak the rich" may be accurately translated to mean "drown the middle class."

"Here's another idea being pushed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney:

Abolish the capital-gains tax on stocks and dividends for people in the bottom tax brackets to encourage them to invest and keep more of their gains.

Actually, the capital-gains tax should be abolished for everyone because it has been achieved with money that was already taxed as income, but that faces huge political obstacles from the pro-tax, anti-growth Democrats in Congress. But I'll bet even Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, would support Romney's plan for his Harlem, N.Y., constituents."


campagnola
Obviously Lambro is not to be trusted and his lies just hide the truth about poverty in America. What do you think is the best way to alleviate the deplorable economic condition suffered by millions of Americans?

campagnolo
I don’t know what the point of your multiple rants is but if you are trying to repeat that old Democrat lie about the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer here is a look at this stuff by someone with common sense.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-census-bureau-income-figures.html


angrywhiteman
yes, that is often the case. I'll tell you, though- its well worth it to see people work around and ultimately out of the system. A couple of years ago, one of my kids left a stree gang, moved to another part of the state with friends of mine (nice family, no weirdos!) to go to school. He is now in medical in India. Stuff like this can make the rest of the ugly scene go away for a while.

Its rarely the government services that do the helping, its individuals making decisions that are often obstructed by the service. Things are so screwed up on the plantation!

Deskjocky is right
"Lambro says we need to reduce poverty and the rich are such because of stocks and bonds. Actually they both are what they are because of behavior traits. Poverty and bonds are merely the results of the person’s behavior."

Excellent point.

Many economic problems are due to social behaviors. Drop out rates, teen motherhood, single mother hood at all ages, deadbeat dads, irregular work patterns, substance abuse, misplaced priorities, immediate vs. long term decision making, and permissive parenting are huge factors in a large percentage of poverty.

The other big factor of poverty is the very worst schools. Breaking that cycle will go a long way in improving prospects for the poor, but the social behaviors listed will continue to take their toll if they continue to be practiced.

Savings/investment rates are FAR too low in Middle America and almost non-existent in lower income parts of the country. People have been conned into believing Social Security is sustainable and Medicare can survive. It can't. Get over it. Make other plans starting TODAY.

Vic
You say, “I don’t know what the point of your multiple rants is…”

Reading comprehension not your thing, eh? The point is Lambro has either deliberately lied to his readers, or has shown journalistic incompetence of the highest order. My opinion is that he has purposely distorted the facts to make a point. I supplied actual data to support my claim. Go back and (slower this time) read what Lambro claims, against the statistics I provided. Is it okay to lie in order to make a point? Because you might actually believe the premise of the author, is it okay to overlook those lies?

The rest of your post is drivel. I was not implying or endorsing any idea about wealth distribution. I was merely pointing out Lambro’s deceit.

Simplified for Vic
I’m feeling generous today...plus, I need another break from insulating my house. So let's start again. Lambro claims, “The poverty rate fell last year for the first time in 10 years...”

Now look at the 10 years of data I posted at 11:09 from the Bureau of Census website.

Notice that the figure in 1997 is a smaller figure than in 1996? See how that works? The smaller number means that the poverty rate fell. Got that? And notice the figure from 1998 is smaller than 1997? And 1999 is yet again smaller than the figure than 1998? And that 2000 is less than 1999?

Now here is your assignment: Do these figures support Lambro’s claim that the poverty rate has fallen for the FIRST time in ten years? Or do they refute his claim? Why does he have to lie in order to make a point?

campagnolo
He probably got it from the Newspapers which worded it this way "The nation’s poverty rate fell in 2006 for the first time this decade". That means since 2000. I don't think it makes a lot of difference. Certainly not worthy of a rant.

Mr. Lambro:
You seem to side with liberal advocates who, for most of the 20th century, suggested that most of the poor are poor because there are not enough jobs for them.

This idea has been debunked.

The boom of the 1960's left behind a smaller and largely NON-working poor population. In 1959, 68 percent of the heads of poor families worked, 31 percent of them full-time and year-round. By 1975 those figures had fallen to 50 and 16 percent respectively, and they have changed little since then. For the non-working poor, a hot economy was no solution. During the boom of the 1990's, poverty fell much LESS than it had in the 1960's.

In reality, the non-working poor far outnumber the working. Only 37 percent of poor adults (sixteen and over) claimed any earnings at all in 2005, (the last year for which this information is available), and just 11 percent of them worked full-time all year. This contrasts with figures of 68 and 46 percent, respectively, for the general population. Moreover, only 4 percent of the nonworking ppor blame their idleness on an inability to find work. More often they report that they are ill, retired, in school, or taking care of families or their government benefit checks are adequate.

One needs to look at how poverty is defined by the government. In 2005, the poverty line for a family of three, for example, was $15,735. That is a meager income by American standards. By this measure, about 13 percent of Americans were poor in 2005. But as many analysts have noted, these numbers overstate the real extent of poverty. The current measure considers only pre-tax cash income, excluding a range of government benefits like food stamps, housing, and wage subsidies. It is also clear, to judge by the level at which they consume, that many people counted as poor underreport their income. Many possess color TV's and VCR's, and nearly half own their own homes.

The true causes of poverty will be addressed in a separate post.

Create more jobs?
Too many breeders are "creating" too many "problems" that are incapable of competing for the many jobs that are available along with media outlets such as MTV "creating" false impressions as to what life really demands in a civilized society where you are not entitled to a living and crime should not pay. Those who make fun of young people working at say McDonalds or Wendy's don't appreciate that at least they are working and someday through their efforts may own a McDonalds! Bottom line: population overload by thoughtless breeders. Happy Labor Day Holiday to the real "laborers" who contribute to the betterment of society. Joy...Joe

Isn't that a 401K
Except for the tax free interest part?

"Stop taxing the interest on ordinary savings (outside of IRAs and other tax-free methods), and start offering paycheck mechanisms for workers to save more. One proposal sitting on the back burners in Congress would establish automatic savings accounts that small businesses would offer to any worker they hire. The money would be automatically withheld, as employers do now for payroll taxes, and deposited into a special tax-free account that each employee would own and take with them whenever they change jobs.

Notably, the idea of establishing universal IRA-style savings accounts for all workers cuts across ideological lines. Both the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institution are jointly promoting the idea. It is estimated that tens of millions of workers who now save nothing would see their automatic savings accounts grow substantially over their working lives, helping to narrow the wealth and income gap."

Mary C.


Poverty Indicator
TruLib writes: "Poverty Indicator
In America the best indicator is obesity. The overweight individual hasn't enough money to afford a health club membership."

Also, they eat cheap, disgusting food, which makes them fat. Processed food, high fructose corn syrup, bleached flour, etc. = a lot of empty calories.

In urban areas, it is often impossible for children to get adequate exercise, because of safety issues outdoors, such as stray bullets from drive by shootings, recruitment from gangs, etc.

Mary C.

The left is...
I think the AMT is what is kicking my income asss! Again, designed to "soak" the nasty rich, and instead taking more of the middle income earner's money...mine! THe left is evil!

GeorgiaGal
It would not matter how much you paid the young women of Generation Whine; what they are interested in is Not Working. This is called *Work Life Balance* these days. Given a choice between hard, exacting work with flexible hours and $50,000 a year salaries, they will not take the jobs BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO WORK. What they all ask as soon as they are interviewed is what vacation time they can get, can they get time off to take their kids to hockey, ballet, soccer, etc. or can they get *family leave* (unlimited and unscheduled) if some *emergency* comes up (like the nanny does not show up or Susie refuses to get dressed for school) and whether or not the hours can be changed so she works 10:00 to 3:30 p.m. although when she took the job she was told the hours were 8:30 a.m. until the work is done. (I actually had a secretary do this to me; the agency asked if she could get off at 4:30 because she had children. I asked the agency if she had those children when she took the job or if she just came home that night and discovered them living in her house.) I suspect that there are millions of good jobs that could be taken by Generation Whine, if only somebody could persuade GW that when you are hired to do a specific job with specific hours, THAT DOES MEAN EVEN IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN. By the way, I saw an employment advice column in our commuter paper the other day that advised a woman who was 3 months pregnant NOT TO TELL PEOPLE AT INTERVIEWS THAT SHE ONLY PLANNED TO WORK FOR FOUR MONTHS and then would go on paid maternity leave for the next year! Fortunately this year mandatory retirement was abolished in Ontario, although businesses are still allowed to strip employees over 65 of all (and I do mean ALL) their benefits. I will be heading back to the States where I can work as long as I please, so at least one law firm can relax. But here in Kanukistan they are, um, stuffed.

Lambro needs to back up his claims
Notice Lambro doesn't cite the surveys that claim "Financially, most Americans are doing well." Probably because they don't exist. This is not new here at TH, these pronouncements that guys like Lambro make to justify their goals - and cynically use Labor Day as an excuse to blame the victims.

Yes, the poverty rate fell a tiny bit - but it is still higher than before Bush took office - AND there are more uninsured Americans than last year. A statistic that pushes the decrease in poverty into the "so what?" category.

Ah, and here's the rub: Lambro is stumping for investing a percentage of our social security into stocks and bonds. Yeah, THOSE stocks and bonds that are currently facing crushing ineptitude on Wall Street by hedge funds, financial institutions and deliriously greedy mortgage lenders. Lambro wants us to trust these same sheisters with our retirement safety net! I'm betting he has some bridges he's like us to invest in as well......


Nee
The AMT was put in place in the 60's to keep the wealthiest from "soaking" the rest of us. The fact that so many of us now fit into it's outdated category is directly attributable to the Bush Administration refusing to bring it into to the 21st century. Not to fear though, Nee, your money will be safe soon enough - thanks in large part to the Democratically controlled Congress, which is slated to update the AMT so that you can keep your precious bucks.

To reduce poverty....
follow the suggestions of Smith, Mises, etc...

How to solve manufacturing job loss
The best way to get back jobs that were outsourced would be to require every level of the supply chain of any product sold in the US to be subject to the same regulations that US companies are subject to.

talisman
The Democraps are the ones who stopped congress from updating it even a little bit. If the AMT had been indexed for inflation it would not kick in until salaries reached 2.1 million.

Nee
"I think the AMT is what is kicking my income asss! Again, designed to "soak" the nasty rich, and instead taking more of the middle income earner's money...mine! THe left is evil!"

Yup. The AMT is evil for exactly the same reasons the CGT is.

The Evil Left pretends to be oh so concerned and caring...while they stomp on the poor and the middle class.

Talisman
"The AMT was put in place in the 60's to keep the wealthiest from "soaking" the rest of us. The fact that so many of us now fit into it's outdated category is directly attributable to the Bush Administration refusing to bring it into to the 21st century. Not to fear though, Nee, your money will be safe soon enough - thanks in large part to the Democratically controlled Congress, which is slated to update the AMT so that you can keep your precious bucks."

The simpler answer would be to GET RID OF THAT TAX. But the Dems have never met a tax they didn't just ADORE. They couldn't stand for it to go.

For some of us, bucks are REALLY precious. Yes, I know how Hillary sneers at the rest of us while bragging up about how SHE doesn't need HER taxes cut!!!!

Like chalk scrapped across a blackboard, that one is.

Moonkeeper
The Left is truly Evil, they moan and cry about all those jobs going south...while driving out the companies that PROVIDE those jobs with more and more taxes and regulations.

Does anyone believe in cause and effect anymore???

AMT and lying Dems history
I knew that the Dems had blocked the Republican congress in last session, but I did not know the real history behind this gouge.

The tax was initially proposed by an LBJ appointee.

The Dems have raised the tax twice.

The Republican congress of 1999 actually approved a bill for its removal and Clinton vetoed it!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200403/ai_n9406628

And the lying Dems have the gall to say they will fix it now.

You Cannot Have It Both Ways
AudiR10 addresses an important issue. Ladies, you can't have it both ways.

Again this is a symptom of a culture that lives in the moment and expects their every choice to be accommodated by some outside entity.

Obviously I am a proponent of mothers staying at home and rearing the children themselves. I am also a huge breastfeeding advocate but I am astounded the burden to make these things possible is being shifted to employers or the government.

Women who want to be available to their children will have to work at a job that specifically caters to that kind of schedule, run her own small business and set her own hours, OR adapt her lifestyle to being able to stay at home on her husband's income. I have friends that do all three variations on that theme at different income levels.

It isn't anyone else's responsibility to make mothers available to their children. They can't have it both ways. If they want to stay out of the work force for a year after their babies are born they'll have to save their pay BEFORE they leave or reduce their lifestyles so they can get along without the pay. THIS IS NOT THEIR EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY! IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY!

You want to raise your children yourself? Plan accordingly. You want your child privately educated? Plan accordingly. Want to eat when you are old? Plan accordingly...

job creation IS doable
Let's take part of the huge sum we spend on the war machine and put it toward the renewable energy and materials sector. We do that and like the IT industry we will lead the world in yet another realm of business and put people back to work.

The Gov. just needs to come up with the will to enforce our immigration laws.

Funny, he didn't say anything about
Corporate Welfare.
There's also the fact that the government continues to cheat on the poverty levels. How far does one take the CPI basket of goods (the means by which they determine inflation)? A number of years ago they anounced it didn't take into account that people switched from eating beef to eating chicken, to tuna, etc. Eventually you will reach a point at which a person would be digging in a dumpster for food and could dispense with the basket of goods. What a crock!
Then there's the fact they don't raise the poverty level by the same amount as inflation each year anyway (it's set each year, but adjusted only every 5-6 years) so they get to write people off the welfare rolls.
Cracks in the system? Forget it; its completely shattered.

Rob
"You need to wake up from your fantasy and your fear of all the boogie men out to get you. Rely on YOURSELF for employment, insurance, investing, etc. What a concept eh?? Boogie men can't hurt you, not even the Wall Street ones in your mind. Work hard, do your investing homework, provide for yourself. Then, if you fail, guess who's to blame????"


A SIMPLISTIC VIEW, INDEED.

When you come in out of the woods, write again.


To Lambro
"Even in the midst of the housing market's downturn, most Americans own their own homes -- nearly 70 percent -- more than ever before in our history. Fifty percent own them outright. Moreover, despite the decline in housing values in some regions, most Americans have seen the value of their homes climb to record highs."

I have several problems/questions about your
column but I have only time to address this one
before I head off for my job.

FIFTY PERCENT OWN THEM OUTRIGHT!!!! Just exactly
what do you mean by that statement. That 50%
of the homeowners have the mortgages paid off. I
don't believe that statement for a minute.

THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES HAVE CLIMBED TO RECORD
HIGHS. We could discuss the value of that at
length. I, for one, do not see that as a plus
at all. I have no problem with the value of
housing going up somewhat over time. But when
a home becomes the equivalent of a stock in its
usefulness (i.e., a marketable asset rather than
a place in which to live) I think we are very
much headed in the wrong direction.

And my children, who are buying or have just bought their own first homes fairly recently would also add that the mortage payments are
sucking the blood out of them. They have not
over-bought. They put real down payments on
their homes, and they bought what they could get
in a "safe" neighborhood. When we bought our
first home, it was oh so much easier to live
with. We could actually afford our home quite
comfortably while buying a comparable house with
comparable salaries to what our kids have now.

I think that one of the worst things that is happening in our society right now is that our
homes have become a secondary stock market. It
is also indicative of of other things in our lives - all centering around lack of permanancy.

Homeschool Mom
"It isn't anyone else's responsibility to make mothers available to their children. They can't have it both ways. If they want to stay out of the work force for a year after their babies are born they'll have to save their pay BEFORE they leave or reduce their lifestyles so they can get along without the pay. THIS IS NOT THEIR EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY! IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY!"

You are right. However, it says a whole lot about
our society and our government when they decide not
to make it an issue. You are left to sink or swim.
We do not intend to help or care. Doesn't it make
your heart swell with pride to belong to just a
noble society.

oldsocialworker
"When I do home visits, I have yet
to go into a poor person's home that doesn't, at this time, have a large plasma screen TV or at very least a large flat screen. All too often the house or apartment is a disaster, but there is the TV, Play Station, surround sound, etc... This is not a myth- ask any career social worker, don't take my word for it. They can't afford school clothes for the kids, vaccinations/health care, food (but are most often quite fat), or any other essential- but entertainment/pamper items ( alcohol,manicures, tattoos, sometimes cosmetic surgery, etc...) are afforded."
+++

You know what, I don't believe you for a minute.
To say there is no truth is of course silly.
But large plasma screens and surround sound in
most homes. Get real. And it doesn't take lots of food to get fat - cheap bad food does it quite quickly.

With your obvious anger and prejudices, why are
you in that line of work? I hope you are
out of it now.

Also, you did not say why you were making home
visits. Social workers make calls for many
reasons. The ones I am most aware of is abusive
situations, foster care, getting children back
with the biological parents, working with mentally and physically handicapped people. Though much of that centers around poor people, it certainly is not a given.

Again, if you don't like the people you are
working with and have very little respect for
them, do us all a favor and quit.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.