Another reason to ask about the Closed Books...

[_charity]

Spiraling who down into more and more poverty?

According to the Dept of Health and Human Services: "In 2003, 3.6 percent of the total population was dependent in that they received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). While higher than the 3.2 percent dependency rate measured in 2002, the 2003 rate is lower than the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996. Overall, 3.4 million fewer Americans were dependent on welfare in 2003 compared with 1996. "

link: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators06/execsum.htm

This supports my statement that there is more poverty. From the National Poverty Center, University of Michigan.

"How many people were poor in 2004?

In 2004, 12.7 percent of all persons lived in poverty. In 1993 the poverty rate was 15.1 percent. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000. Poverty has risen in each of the last four years."

That says MORE people are living in poverty as I said.

[_harmony]

Spiraling who down into more and more poverty?

According to the Dept of Health and Human Services: "In 2003, 3.6 percent of the total population was dependent in that they received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). While higher than the 3.2 percent dependency rate measured in 2002, the 2003 rate is lower than the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996. Overall, 3.4 million fewer Americans were dependent on welfare in 2003 compared with 1996. "

link: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators06/execsum.htm

This supports my statement that there is more poverty. From the National Poverty Center, University of Michigan.

"How many people were poor in 2004?

In 2004, 12.7 percent of all persons lived in poverty. In 1993 the poverty rate was 15.1 percent. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000. Poverty has risen in each of the last four years."

That says MORE people are living in poverty as I said.

*sigh*

Which math program did you study, that shows that 15.1% is less than 12.7%? Please tell me this isn't from your accountant. In 1993, according to your quote, 15.1% of the population lived in poverty. In 2004, according to your quote, 12.7% of the population lived in poverty. Therefore, in the ensuing 11 years, the poverty rate dropped to a low of 11.3% in 2000 and then rose to 12.7%, for a total decrease of 2.4%. Did you miss that? DROPPED. Less than. Decreased. The poverty level, according to YOUR source, is still DOWN 2.4% below 1993 levels.

That makes me right, charity. Not you. Just because it's risen in the last few years (thank you, George Bush) doesn't mean it was at the same level or higher than it was 10 years ago.

[_charity]

Rising poverty rates means less poverty. I see your math. 10 years ago doesn't make much difference to those who are now in poverty when they weren't last year, or the year before or the year before. I guess you count numbers. I count people. But I won't fight it with you. That isn't the purpose of this thread.

[_beastie]

Rising poverty rates means less poverty. I see your math. 10 years ago doesn't make much difference to those who are now in poverty when they weren't last year, or the year before or the year before. I guess you count numbers. I count people. But I won't fight it with you. That isn't the purpose of this thread.

LOL! No, Charity, you don't have a hard time admitting when you're wrong at all, do you? LOL!

[_charity]

Rising poverty rates means less poverty. I see your math. 10 years ago doesn't make much difference to those who are now in poverty when they weren't last year, or the year before or the year before. I guess you count numbers. I count people. But I won't fight it with you. That isn't the purpose of this thread.

LOL! No, Charity, you don't have a hard time admitting when you're wrong at all, do you? LOL!

Not when I am. Talk to harmony about RISING poverty rates. But if she wants to count how many people were under the poverty level in the 90's or 80's or 70' she can. I have shown that what I said was correct. She used stats from 2003. I had more recent stats. Oh well.

[_harmony]

Rising poverty rates means less poverty.

What on earth....?

Rising poverty rates means more poverty. But even in 2004, the rates were still below 1993.

You said it was getting worse. Worse than when? Worse than 10 years ago? No, it's not.

And you claim to count people? what about that 3.4 million who are no longer on the poverty rolls? Aren't they people?

[_charity]

Rising poverty rates means less poverty.

What on earth....?

Rising poverty rates means more poverty. But even in 2004, the rates were still below 1993.

You said it was getting worse. Worse than when? Worse than 10 years ago? No, it's not.

And you claim to count people? what about that 3.4 million who are no longer on the poverty rolls? Aren't they people?

This is what I said. "Rising poverty rates means less poverty. I see your math." That was meant to point out that your position was not tenable. Your math says to you that rising poverty rates mean less poverty? I should have used a question mark to be clearer.

Obviously, Harmony, we are using two different sets of data. Yours, from the government which wants to prove what a great job they are doing, and mine from an independent institution which has no axe to grind. Which do you think is more realistic?

[_beastie]

So, charity, are you saying that the wrong-headed social changes that have had such dismal results have only been implemented in the last four years, since that's the only data you want to look at?

[_harmony]

This is what I said. "Rising poverty rates means less poverty. I see your math." That was meant to point out that your position was not tenable. Your math says to you that rising poverty rates mean less poverty? I should have used a question mark to be clearer.

Huh?

Obviously, Harmony, we are using two different sets of data. Yours, from the government which wants to prove what a great job they are doing, and mine from an independent institution which has no axe to grind. Which do you think is more realistic?

Charity, are you really that naïve? Geez, I thought I was the hick from the sticks, but even I'm not that naïve. There is no such thing as a independent institution. Every institution has an axe to grind. Some just hide it better than others.

Are you saying the government's numbers are incorrect? Who do you think has a better handle on the numbers, someone far from the source of the aid, or the people who are actually giving out the aid?

Good grief.