U.S. poverty on track to rise to highest since 1960s
WASHINGTON (AP) - The ranks of America's poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.
Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections.
The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest since 1965.
Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.
"I grew up going to Hawaii every summer. Now I'm here, applying for assistance because it's hard to make ends meet. It's very hard to adjust," said Laura Fritz, 27, of Wheat Ridge, Colo., describing her slide from rich to poor as she filled out aid forms at a county center. Since 2000, large swaths of Jefferson County just outside Denver have seen poverty nearly double.
Fritz says she grew up wealthy in the Denver suburb of Highlands Ranch, but fortunes turned after her parents lost a significant amount of money in the housing bust. Stuck in a half-million dollar house, her parents began living off food stamps and Fritz's college money evaporated. She tried joining the Army but was injured during basic training.
Now she's living on disability, with an infant daughter and a boyfriend, Garrett Goudeseune, 25, who can't find work as a landscaper. They are struggling to pay their $650 rent on his unemployment checks and don't know how they would get by without the extra help as they hope for the job market to improve.
In an election year dominated by discussion of the middle class, Fritz's case highlights a dim reality for the growing group in poverty. Millions could fall through the cracks as government aid from unemployment insurance, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps diminishes.
"The issues aren't just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy," said Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy.
He pointed to the recent recession but also longer-term changes in the economy such as globalization, automation, outsourcing, immigration, and less unionization that have pushed median household income lower. Even after strong economic growth in the 1990s, poverty never fell below a 1973 low of 11.1 percent. That low point came after President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, launched in 1964, that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs.
"I'm reluctant to say that we've gone back to where we were in the 1960s. The programs we enacted make a big difference. The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon," Edelman said.
Stacey Mazer of the National Association of State Budget Officers said states will be watching for poverty increases when figures are released in September as they make decisions about the Medicaid expansion. Most states generally assume poverty levels will hold mostly steady and they will hesitate if the findings show otherwise. "It's a constant tension in the budget," she said.
The predictions for 2011 are based on separate AP interviews, supplemented with research on suburban poverty from Alan Berube of the Brookings Institution and an analysis of federal spending by the Congressional Research Service and Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute.
The analysts' estimates suggest that some 47 million people in the U.S., or 1 in 6, were poor last year. An increase of one-tenth of a percentage point to 15.2 percent would tie the 1983 rate, the highest since 1965. The highest level on record was 22.4 percent in 1959, when the government began calculating poverty figures.
Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.
Demographers also say:
-Poverty will remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 percent for many more years. Several predicted that peak poverty levels - 15 percent to 16 percent - will last at least until 2014, due to expiring unemployment benefits, a jobless rate persistently above 6 percent and weak wage growth.
-Suburban poverty, already at a record level of 11.8 percent, will increase again in 2011.
-Part-time or underemployed workers, who saw a record 15 percent poverty in 2010, will rise to a new high.
-Poverty among people 65 and older will remain at historically low levels, buoyed by Social Security cash payments.
-Child poverty will increase from its 22 percent level in 2010.
Analysts also believe that the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the poverty level, will remain near its peak level of 6.7 percent.
"I've always been the guy who could find a job. Now I'm not," said Dale Szymanski, 56, a Teamsters Union forklift operator and convention hand who lives outside Las Vegas in Clark County. In a state where unemployment ranks highest in the nation, the Las Vegas suburbs have seen a particularly rapid increase in poverty from 9.7 percent in 2007 to 14.7 percent.
Szymanski, who moved from Wisconsin in 2000, said he used to make a decent living of more than $40,000 a year but now doesn't work enough hours to qualify for union health care. He changed apartments several months ago and sold his aging 2001 Chrysler Sebring in April to pay expenses.
"You keep thinking it's going to turn around. But I'm stuck," he said.
The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership, as well as noncash aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which were expanded substantially under President Barack Obama's stimulus package.
An additional 9 million people in 2010 would have been counted above the poverty line if food stamps and tax credits were taken into account.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes the social safety net has worked and it is now time to cut back. He worries that advocates may use a rising poverty rate to justify additional spending on the poor, when in fact, he says, many live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
A new census measure accounts for noncash aid, but that supplemental poverty figure isn't expected to be released until after the November election. Since that measure is relatively new, the official rate remains the best gauge of year-to-year changes in poverty dating back to 1959.
Few people advocate cuts in anti-poverty programs. Roughly 79 percent of Americans think the gap between rich and poor has grown in the past two decades, according to a Public Religion Research Institute/RNS Religion News survey from November 2011. The same poll found that about 67 percent oppose "cutting federal funding for social programs that help the poor" to help reduce the budget deficit.
Outside of Medicaid, federal spending on major low-income assistance programs such as food stamps, disability aid and tax credits have been mostly flat at roughly 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product from 1975 to the 1990s. Spending spiked higher to 2.3 percent of GDP after Obama's stimulus program in 2009 temporarily expanded unemployment insurance and tax credits for the poor.
The U.S. safety net may soon offer little comfort to people such as Jose Gorrin, 52, who lives in the western Miami suburb of Hialeah Gardens. Arriving from Cuba in 1980, he was able to earn a decent living as a plumber for years, providing for his children and ex-wife. But things turned sour in 2007 and in the past two years he has barely worked, surviving on the occasional odd job.
His unemployment has run out, and he's too young to draw Social Security.
Holding a paper bag of still-warm bread he'd just bought for lunch, Gorrin said he hasn't decided whom he'll vote for in November, expressing little confidence the presidential candidates can solve the nation's economic problems. "They all promise to help when they're candidates," Gorrin said, adding, "I hope things turn around. I already left Cuba. I don't know where else I can go."
___
Associated Press writers Kristen Wyatt in Lakewood, Colo., Ken Ritter and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas, Laura Wides-Munoz in Miami and AP Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections.
The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest since 1965.
Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.
"I grew up going to Hawaii every summer. Now I'm here, applying for assistance because it's hard to make ends meet. It's very hard to adjust," said Laura Fritz, 27, of Wheat Ridge, Colo., describing her slide from rich to poor as she filled out aid forms at a county center. Since 2000, large swaths of Jefferson County just outside Denver have seen poverty nearly double.
Fritz says she grew up wealthy in the Denver suburb of Highlands Ranch, but fortunes turned after her parents lost a significant amount of money in the housing bust. Stuck in a half-million dollar house, her parents began living off food stamps and Fritz's college money evaporated. She tried joining the Army but was injured during basic training.
Now she's living on disability, with an infant daughter and a boyfriend, Garrett Goudeseune, 25, who can't find work as a landscaper. They are struggling to pay their $650 rent on his unemployment checks and don't know how they would get by without the extra help as they hope for the job market to improve.
In an election year dominated by discussion of the middle class, Fritz's case highlights a dim reality for the growing group in poverty. Millions could fall through the cracks as government aid from unemployment insurance, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps diminishes.
"The issues aren't just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy," said Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy.
He pointed to the recent recession but also longer-term changes in the economy such as globalization, automation, outsourcing, immigration, and less unionization that have pushed median household income lower. Even after strong economic growth in the 1990s, poverty never fell below a 1973 low of 11.1 percent. That low point came after President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, launched in 1964, that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs.
"I'm reluctant to say that we've gone back to where we were in the 1960s. The programs we enacted make a big difference. The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon," Edelman said.
Stacey Mazer of the National Association of State Budget Officers said states will be watching for poverty increases when figures are released in September as they make decisions about the Medicaid expansion. Most states generally assume poverty levels will hold mostly steady and they will hesitate if the findings show otherwise. "It's a constant tension in the budget," she said.
The predictions for 2011 are based on separate AP interviews, supplemented with research on suburban poverty from Alan Berube of the Brookings Institution and an analysis of federal spending by the Congressional Research Service and Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute.
The analysts' estimates suggest that some 47 million people in the U.S., or 1 in 6, were poor last year. An increase of one-tenth of a percentage point to 15.2 percent would tie the 1983 rate, the highest since 1965. The highest level on record was 22.4 percent in 1959, when the government began calculating poverty figures.
Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.
Demographers also say:
-Poverty will remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 percent for many more years. Several predicted that peak poverty levels - 15 percent to 16 percent - will last at least until 2014, due to expiring unemployment benefits, a jobless rate persistently above 6 percent and weak wage growth.
-Suburban poverty, already at a record level of 11.8 percent, will increase again in 2011.
-Part-time or underemployed workers, who saw a record 15 percent poverty in 2010, will rise to a new high.
-Poverty among people 65 and older will remain at historically low levels, buoyed by Social Security cash payments.
-Child poverty will increase from its 22 percent level in 2010.
Analysts also believe that the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the poverty level, will remain near its peak level of 6.7 percent.
"I've always been the guy who could find a job. Now I'm not," said Dale Szymanski, 56, a Teamsters Union forklift operator and convention hand who lives outside Las Vegas in Clark County. In a state where unemployment ranks highest in the nation, the Las Vegas suburbs have seen a particularly rapid increase in poverty from 9.7 percent in 2007 to 14.7 percent.
Szymanski, who moved from Wisconsin in 2000, said he used to make a decent living of more than $40,000 a year but now doesn't work enough hours to qualify for union health care. He changed apartments several months ago and sold his aging 2001 Chrysler Sebring in April to pay expenses.
"You keep thinking it's going to turn around. But I'm stuck," he said.
The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership, as well as noncash aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which were expanded substantially under President Barack Obama's stimulus package.
An additional 9 million people in 2010 would have been counted above the poverty line if food stamps and tax credits were taken into account.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes the social safety net has worked and it is now time to cut back. He worries that advocates may use a rising poverty rate to justify additional spending on the poor, when in fact, he says, many live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
A new census measure accounts for noncash aid, but that supplemental poverty figure isn't expected to be released until after the November election. Since that measure is relatively new, the official rate remains the best gauge of year-to-year changes in poverty dating back to 1959.
Few people advocate cuts in anti-poverty programs. Roughly 79 percent of Americans think the gap between rich and poor has grown in the past two decades, according to a Public Religion Research Institute/RNS Religion News survey from November 2011. The same poll found that about 67 percent oppose "cutting federal funding for social programs that help the poor" to help reduce the budget deficit.
Outside of Medicaid, federal spending on major low-income assistance programs such as food stamps, disability aid and tax credits have been mostly flat at roughly 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product from 1975 to the 1990s. Spending spiked higher to 2.3 percent of GDP after Obama's stimulus program in 2009 temporarily expanded unemployment insurance and tax credits for the poor.
The U.S. safety net may soon offer little comfort to people such as Jose Gorrin, 52, who lives in the western Miami suburb of Hialeah Gardens. Arriving from Cuba in 1980, he was able to earn a decent living as a plumber for years, providing for his children and ex-wife. But things turned sour in 2007 and in the past two years he has barely worked, surviving on the occasional odd job.
His unemployment has run out, and he's too young to draw Social Security.
Holding a paper bag of still-warm bread he'd just bought for lunch, Gorrin said he hasn't decided whom he'll vote for in November, expressing little confidence the presidential candidates can solve the nation's economic problems. "They all promise to help when they're candidates," Gorrin said, adding, "I hope things turn around. I already left Cuba. I don't know where else I can go."
___
Associated Press writers Kristen Wyatt in Lakewood, Colo., Ken Ritter and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas, Laura Wides-Munoz in Miami and AP Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
The war on drugs is far more important than the war on poverty right?
Does anybody understand that obama is not the right guy to get the economy right? The man HAS NEVER EVER in his life had a job! He has never worked a day in the private sector, never earned a 40 hour a week paycheck!
This comment has been deleted
 @GoDawgs Actually her family COULD afford the house but lost their jobs etc. There are lots of people that ARE actually responsible, educated hard working person that are now unable to work, or to find a wage that allows them to maintain their current lifestyle (These are not the rich and famous btw).  We all need to open our eyes and look around to whats happening. The poverty is engineered, just like it was in mexico, just like it was in Argentina. Your not off the poverty list either. You may be next in line.Â
Just one question. Â Where are all those jobs that the tax breaks for the rich were supposed to create? Â I mean, it's been 10 years. Â I think the rich should either start creating the jobs, or give back those tax break bonuses.
 @Cetus Heres the thing.  Tax breaks for the rich don't create jobs.  Demand for products and services create jobs.  The logic was that the rich would reinvest in their businesses and hire more people thusly creating jobs.  However business owners won't reinvest if there isn't and demand or not enough demand.  Therefore no added jobs and no added demand.  The government should have bailed out the citizens and the banks not one or the other. Â
 @DeadRabitz Of course tax breaks don't create jobs.  That was my point.  Although Robert Reich would contend that if  you give tax breaks to the middle class and the poor, that would generate more spending on their part, therefore more demand, therefore more jobs.
 @Cetus I was agreeing with you.  Tax breaks for the poor and middle class don't go very far.  We need debt relief and stability. Â
 @Cetus if you recall our economy started to go down mid 2008 and since then obama has spent recklessly and has been giving other countries money.
 @takingamericaback If you'll recall, the tax cuts for the rich and famous were enacted ten years ago.  I say again, where are all the jobs they were supposed to generate.
 @takingamericaback Obama started foreign aid??? Wow, I didn't know that.
Â
Lets see, how much foreign aid has Obama given over the previous administration...great thing about the internet, you can check facts!
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
Â
2001:Â 16.6 billion Clinton
2002: 19.3 billion Bush
2003: 29.2 billion Bush
2004: 33.2 billion Bush
2005: 37.2 billion Bush
2006: 39.5 billion Bush
2007: 41.0 billion Bush
2008: 49.9 billion Bush
2009: 48.5 billion Bush
2010: 52.7 billion Obama
Â
Wait a minute Howard Beale, George W. Bush was President in 2001. Yup. And he would have been running the books based on the Clinton Administration created budget through most of the calendar year. The US government fiscal year starts on October 1 and ends September 30. So the 2001 budget would have started on October 1, 2000, when Clinton was still President. Ditto with Obama in 2009. He would have been running the Bush budget that started on October 1, 2008.
Â
So, under Bush, foreign aid increased 292%.
Â
Under Obama it has increased - 8%. 2010 is as far as the data is available.
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
Â
Oh, and since you brought it up, the US budget in 2010, was $2.08 trillion dollars with a T. That means foreign aid was about 2.5% of the total budget.
Â
Ya, it's all that foreign aid. Clearly that's the problem.
Â
In the future, I really suggest you educate yourself.
 @Howard Beale I think the 49.9 billion under Bush was more money than the 52.7 under Obama with inflation figured in, or pretty close anyway
 @Howard Beale He won't but nice try.
So, why are we continuing to provide free education to illegal aliens, free lunches and medical care? With everyone struggling, why are colleges and universities are increasing tuitions 25% per year for the past 20 years? The poor is getting poorer, working class is struggling and the rich is getting richer. Start with education - tool for a better future.
How is that whole hope and change thing working out?
Â
As for the minimum wage, economics 101, you raise the minimum wage, prices on everything goes up and that minimum wage job has the same buying power it did before. Â It actually drives up inflation. Â If you don't believe that, how about pushing to get minimum wage to $20 an hour, see how that works out for everyone.
 @NitroxmanÂ
Â
Inflation is engineered by the federal reserve. It has nothing to do with how much the minimum wage is.   Minimum wage is what, almost 9 bucks an hour? its nothing anyways. Nobody can live on that, not without giving up their house and home, living with roommates etc.Â
 @snow surfer
 Minimum wage varies from state to state. The states are allowed to set their own minimum wage, provided it doesn't fall below the federal minimum wage, which is a joke at $5.25 an hour. But you're right about one very important thing: it's not a livable wage no matter how you slice it.
Well its been 4 years since the Obama took office and here we are faceing the worst economy since the Great Depression. But, oh wait, its all Bush's fault. Obama has had 4 years to try and get the economy back on track and it seems we are going backwards. But according to all the "Progressive Liberals" its all Bush's fault, 4 years after the fact. And now they want us to re-elect Obama so we can sink even further. Amazing isnt it????????
 @Busyhands the economy has improved, the facts are clear on this, just not enough because republicans fought everything that would have helped America, because they vowed to make Obama fail.
here is a good article:Â
Â
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/obama-deserves-credit-for-the-recovery
Â
Â
 @Bob42263 He deserves credit for the economy. We agree on that.
 @Bob42263 I guess if you don't count the $900B authorized under the ARRA, you're right.  Or the $450B already spent not counting  tax breaks.
Â
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Â
Perhaps you can point out the successful economies that print fiat money?Â
Â
How come when these Keynesian policies NEVER, EVER work, it's ALWAYS "We didn't spent enough?" Maybe Greece and Spain need to spend more as well, eh?
Â
FDR never got us out of the Depression. Maybe he didn't spend enough?
 @Sid Vishess i guess you didn't read the article, it said: " There should be little doubt that President Obama deserves credit for what recovery we are seeing; although he also must share in the blame for it not being faster."
Â
President Obama deserves credit for the recovery, which is great for big business, not so great for working Americans. Still better than it was when Obama took over, no reasonable person can say otherwise. Big business is making record profits, the recession ended in 2009, the economy has been growing, although not as fast as it could have been had republicans and democrats focused on jobs instead of "THE DEFICITS".
Read Dean Baker, he blasts the Obama admin. a lot, and all of those in power in DC. But he knows that Obama is not a dictator and has had little of his economic policies passed by a worthless congress. Baker ends his article with this: " If President Obama deserves blame, it is for not making the stimulus larger and having it last longer. The stimulus was only around $300 billion a year at its peak in 2009 and 2010. It had to counteract a loss in annual private sector demand of more than $1 trillion. Put another way, it created 3 million jobs in an economy where we needed 10 million. The 3 million jobs is a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough."
 @Busyhands Weird how you make it seem like you've been waiting four years to call it all Obama's fault. And just so you know. The REPUBLICAN party started the Progressive Movement in this country.
Now if you want to talk about Obama caving in right after his election and paying off all of Cheney's and Bush's cronies for having destroyed the United States from the inside, yeah. THAT is all on him. Of course, he'd likely be dead right now if he hadn't. Still, a backstabbing coward in our White House means that the Dems have had to do drastic things to react to the Republican powerbase having created their new government superbranch that is publicly and openly existing with zero oversight. Not even the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over Homeland Security, which more than makes up for the Dem's powerbase constricting the illegal domestic activities of the CIA.
So, what was Obama to do? He had the Medicare Superfund coming awake soon; but every typical place a Democrat President might normally infuse with both clout and cash was already under the thumb of the new and all-powerful scumbags that could ALL be imprisoned except for that fascist patriot Act that protects criminals; existing for NOTHING ELSE. So he designs a new healthcare system and institutes funding to try to choke off power of the neo-cons by spreading out energy production and getting in bed with the unions, who will be building the new grid, all the new generation facilities...etc. Knowing that he couldn't mess with any of the existing deals with China, he laid the framework for the next generation of Chinese expansion; which was coming no matter what anyway. So China gets Boeing technology, and we get massive contracts to bootstrap China's energy and various manufacturing fields. And the U.S. DOESN'T get crushed by the trillions in raw cash that China legitimately holds, and DOESN'T get cut off from the best low-cost raw materials access there is on this world like Japan or Australia.
Now you can foam at the mouth again, but you'd do well to remember that you will be USED and the only thing that matters to those who count on YOUR support is that you keep on supporting that open, public criminal activity with your day-to-day conversation. Keep on defending the idea that mine or your few grand in taxes is all we need to run this country; and not the TENS OF TRILLIONS per year we do NOT receive from those who make the most for doing the least.
 @Busyhands
 What I find amazing is how many people apparently slept through their US History lessons on the Great Depression. It took nearly 20 years for the economy to fully recover after the Depression, yet people like you are all in a tizzy because Obama didn't have everything back to normal by 5pm on January 21st. Unbelievable.
 @Mikeftm As a class assignment I would like you students to compare and contrast the Harding/ Coolidge reaction to adverse economic conditions inherited from their  predecessors as opposed to Hoover/ FDR and Bush/Obama.
Â
"With the exception of Lincoln, probably no president in our national history has taken office with as pressing a burden of unresolved questions." Those were the words of the Nation of February 1921. The national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% after a runaway inflation." -The Harding/Coolidge Prosperity of the 1920's by Glen Abel
Â
In short, Â Hoover and FDR's response to the bad economy is eerily similar to Bush and Obama's thus prolonging the Depression/Recession.Â
Â
It was called the Roaring Twenties for a reason and it didn't take 10 years from when Harding took over and shortly thereafter, Coolidge.
 @Sid Vishess TARP the Bush bailout of Wall Street that Obama and 95% of our elected leaders supported? TARP was needed according to their story because the financial system was ready to crash. So tarp is the result of the private sector not being regulated enough, remember Alan Greenspan's opinion that Wall Street could regulate itself because they understood the complex financial instruments they were using. Greenspan was a hero to republicans and democrats until his theology was proven not to work.
 @Sid Vishess actually most of the sub prime loans were provided by private mortgage companies , like Countrywide. They were pushing these loans because they made lots of money off of them, at least in the short term. Freddie and Fannie had less than 20% of the sub prime market.
Â
www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/fannie-freddie-dont-deserve-blame-for-bubble/2012/01/23/gIQAn3LZMQ_story.html
Â
 @Bob42263 And I would contend that there would never BE sub-prime loans )to that extent anyway), were the Federal Government not backing them. Perhaps they would be more careful with their money if the losses were not socialized, eh?
 @Bob42263 So I guess if you don't count TARP, you're right.
 @Sid Vishess nobody said it was bad, it is just what happened. It is one of many reasons that the majority of Americans had less money, while the few on top saw huge increases. Sounds familiar? Huge increases in productivity did not lead to increases in wages, as a matter of fact most people wages went down back in the 20's and then again in the 2000's.
As for your link almost all empirical data disproves the theology of the Austrian economic theory. Bush did not intervene in capital markets, the facts are quite clear that his admin. let the "free market regulate themselves" and the private sector created the financial crisis. No amount of spin can change these facts. It wasn't the CRA, it wasn't Freddie & Fannie. It was Wall Street, Countrywide, AIG, Bear Sterns, etc that created hundreds of trillions of $$ in derivatives based on securities created from sub prime mortgages. Pushing theology when it's math is just a waste of time
 @Bob42263 Thanks for the laugh!
Â
"Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery."Â
Â
So advances in manufacturing technology is bad? Like ATM machines? Grape Flavor-aid? Â Here's a link that even you can understand.
Â
Â
Â
Â
http://mises.org/daily/4896
Â
 @Sid Vishess you seem to forget that the "roaring 20's" were only a success for the top 1 to 2 %. Income disparity grew and grew during the 20's. Almost all economic numbers were bad for working and poor Americans. While the wealthy took the extra money they got and invested it on short-sighted Wall Street investments. The 30's bad economic issues all were the direct results of taking more money from the 99% and giving it to the top 1%. It's math, take too much money from the majority of the people and they can't buy products and services.
Â
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
Â
from link: " During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.An average of 600 banks fail each year. Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline. The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929."Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade. By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929. The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners."
Â
 @Mikeftm The above statement of yours regarding the economic recovery from the Depression/War Economy is correct. I said nothing that contradicts that time line. I was pointing out WHY it took so long to recover and WHY it was different during the Harding/Coolidge years.. In short, the more Hoover and FDR tried to "fix" things, the worse things got. Sort of like Bush and Obama.
 @Sid Vishess
 Wow, I have never seen someone fail harder than you just did. The Great Depression started after the stock market crash of October, 1929. The economy finally pulled completely clear and was healthy and robust again in the late 40's, after the end of WWII.
Â
But thanks for proving my point.
 @Mikeftm http://mises.org/daily/4896
it didnt take that long for our economy to come back. because we were doing fine throughout the 1940's and the the depression happened in the 30's so your math is a little bit off there i think. But the thing is everything obama has done has more our economy worse. he doesnt care about capitalizim in fact he really hates it. remember his speech " if you have a successfull business, you didnt work for it somebody else did.."
You might want to try looking at just a little more of the transcript in order to not only try to quote it correctly but also to try to quote it within context. I.e. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a businessâyou didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
[The words that were singled out, of course, were, "If you've got a businessâyou didn't build that." Now, if you've got a basic understanding of the English language, you can see that the word "that" there doesn't refer to "business"âit refers to "roads and bridges" in the previous sentence. If you can't see that, you're (sic) really shouldn't be in the word business, and you might have difficulty understanding ordinary conversations with your friends.]
 @Busyhands Not saying I think Bush is amazing or anything, but I always find it interesting that people are quick to put the blame on him. Sure he didn't give Obama a great set up, but it's something that's been a long time coming (from before him), AND he had to deal with something that forever changed us. Are we so quick to forget that he got us through 9/11??Â
Where is the husband?  hmmm.... no husband?  Sporting a  tattoo?  Some people don't like tattoos. Â
 @None Funny.... that's what you got out of the article?
"Action Center"? That's pretty funny all by itself. Not squirting-out babies will greatly reduce your odds of finding yourself struggling and/or in pover.
Peter Edelman hit it right on the head. The big problem is the lack of livable wage jobs. Now which party is it that keeps trying to slash the minimum wage and kill off those pesky good-paying union jobs...it's right on the tip of my tongue...
 @Mikeftm Let's see. I can hire 6 people at minimum wage (say $10 per hour as example) or I can pay $8 per hour and hire a few more. So, should I be forced to get more work out of less workers or should I spread the work around and not work my people so hard? And if you consider ANY minimum wage job a "living wage" you're out of your mind.
Â
As far as unions, the righties are simply trying to break the death grip the public sector unions have on government. Every single city that's had to file bankruptcy has been forced into it because they can no longer afford wages and benefits most of the public would drool to have.
 @Middle Ground but if the min. wage is higher, you'll have the need for more employees because demand will increase......
Unions, sure they are what's wrong with this country, hey did you notice how the big banks got over 30 Trillion $$ in zero interest loans from the FED and US Treasury?? All backed by tax payers?? The GAO audit last July was largely ignored by the corporate media. Wonder why?
@Middle Ground @Mikeftm "Every single city that's had to file bankruptcy has been forced into it because they can no longer afford wages and benefits most of the public would drool to have."
Â
Every single city that has had to file bankruptcy has been forced into it because they were all heavily invested in triple "A" rated securities that were actually bundled up sub-prime loans. The very same financial sector that we bailed out are the ones responsible for the losses that the pension funds and other municipality investments incurred. For you to suggest that this entire financial crisis is because of unions and the wages is simply hogwash.
 @Middle Ground  @Mikeftm Yes, because we all know firemen, police and EMS are the "enemy."
Â
They were our heroes on September 12, 2001 - I guess we decided not to, "always remember."
Â
Nah, they shouldn't get a pension. Nah, they shouldn't have medical benefits. You know, let's roll like they do in Detroit. There when you call for EMS, an ambulance may not even show up. If you have a heart attack, your survivability percentage is 0%. ZERO FREAKIN' PERCENT. Hey - what do we need EMS for.
Â
So riddle me this Middle Ground, if I don't get fire, if I don't get police, if I don't get EMS, if I don't get schools, if I don't get trained teachers, if I don't get my roads serviced - WHAT AM I PAYING TAXES FOR??? To keep the politico paid in six digits and with fat for life healthcare plans?
Â
Who is the enemy again - exactly??? Who has the death grips on who, exactly??? Did some of these bankrupt California communities have city leaders paying themselves obscene salaries???
Â
And you know what's next. Why give those soldiers a pension and a retirement. Why, if we make them 401K plans, the banks can syphon off 30% right from the top in "management fees." The next thing we can do is get rid of the VA, because they certainly need to suck it up and pay for their own medical care. Hey, that's what some on the political, ehem, "right," are actually suggesting - strongly.
Â
If we become a nation of, "do you want fries with that," then what is left.
Â
The minimum wage is a joke, and your argument a total red herring. With the exception of rural areas and fly over states, there aren't many true "minimum wage" jobs because people won't take them. At $7.25 per hour you make $290 a week. You're really going to look me in the eyes with a straight face and say $7.25 is a "living wage," suck it up and take it.
Â
I'm lucky, if that day comes I'll simply leave the country and go international where my skills pay more. We're already seeing that today - oh wait - that means our best minds are leaving to make more money in Asia and developing nations, which makes us even less competitive.
Â
But that's OK - it breeds more poverty. Yay! Poverty!
 @takingamericaback There was a time in this nation where the mantra was a living wage for honest work. There was this really dumb socialist guy. You might have heard of this Commie bastard. His name was Henry Ford.
Â
Now Henry Ford has this stupid, communist, socialist, awful idea. The people building his cars should be paid enough to afford a small home, provide for a family and buy one of the cars they are building. Wait, there is more. This insane lunatic communist also thought there should be a 40 hour work week. And time for recreation and vacation.
Â
Can you believe this guy! What the Hell was he thinking!!!
Â
Wait, there is more. There was this other company, awful company. General Motors. They came up with this total whacky idea that only a socialist could think of. They created a society. Now we know how scary those societies are. It was the Fisher Body Craftsman's Guild. At one time they had eight million of our children, indoctrinated into this crazy idea. You know what the guild did? They gave out college scholarships, starting in 1934. They looked for the best kids for engineering and design, and had national contests. Oh no, kids didn't get token scholarships, full pull ivy league even living expenses covered ones. Oh those stupid communists - private enterprise paying for college educations?!?!
Â
Then they got this even whacker idea during World War II. As a recruiting tool for new employees, because manpower was scarce - they would give medical benefits paid to their employees and their family. PAID MEDICAL BENEFITS?!?!?
Â
COMMUNISM!!!
Â
It makes me so sad when someone likes you puffs out their chest and declares I work a minimum wage job (or two or three) or one just above and I have a kid and I go to school. I work 100 hours a week to get ahead and I'm shortening my life by a decade or two, but its OK. Because one day I'll get ahead. You say it like this is "normal."
Â
Like this is how it was done. You've been sold a complete load of crap my young lad, and you're working yourself to death. What, you really think a four year education at a college GUARANTEES YOU success in this country today? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Boy oh boy, you're going to have a rude awakening. About half of the MBA students I interview aren't even qualified to run a cash register at Denny's, much less enter corporate America.
Â
But you keep up that hard work - the corporatism we live in sure does appreciate it. Maybe you can find some socialist program in corporate America, where if you really have a gifted bright mind that will take you past $10 an hour they'll pay for it all. Oh but wait, that's socialism, I forgot.
 @Howard Beale i dont have a problem paying taxes for firefighters cops, education, and roads. But I do have a problem paying taxes for free education  for illegal aliens to have food stamps welfare and free healthcare for them. Oh buy the way leave the country go ahead go somewhere that already has a socialist or communist policys. I bet you will be wanting to come back here soon after you leave.  if you have a minumum wage job and work it for 20 plus years thats your fault nobody elses. I only make 2 dollars an hour more than minumum wage and have a kid and I am married, but I am also going to school full time as well as working full time to better myself and aquire a better paying job in the future. you work hard you get rewarded in some way or another. make something of yourself dont expect a handout, if EVERYBODY had that attitude then we would be better off.
wait...i thought media was telling me everything looking up...being obama up for re-election and all...
Good thing she can afford tattoos while we pay for her baby to eat....
I didn't get to go to Hawaii this year therefore I'm poor.  I'm not buying it. I might have to eat cold bread. I had to sell a car.  Next time the article should show some actual poor people if they want to make a point.
Way to judge. That warm bread that you seem to believe they are not entitled to may ne the only thiing they eat all day.
Nobody dumster dives in the morning as the food is all gone or completely rotted. This means if Jose has money for lunch he has money fro breakfast. That woman and the baby look well fed so I'm not judging at all. I'm stating facts most likl;ey while you sit and use conjecture an innuendo based on hearsay and and bad guesswork.
 @Granny_MAC "This means if Jose has money for lunch he has money fro breakfast."
Â
What an arrogant and assumptive statement...
Â
It is very possible that the breakfast had to be skipped in order to afford lunch...
 @Granny_MAC There are beaches in Hawaii you can camp (squat) for $2.00 a day. She should save up her free paychecks and go there!
 @Ducky  @Granny_MAC If you mean on Oahu they just cleared them all out - police and bulldozers. I've been out there on the west end of the island. They sure aren't friendly to outsiders but some of those "squats" were looking pretty nice.