[GoneForNow]

I'm sorry...I really tried to leave this post alone but I just couldn't stop myself. The premise of the post:

Two, if the law is not completely clear as to it's intent, then it should be sent back to the drawing board or flat out discarded.

Followed shortly by:

Law is nothing but language.

As opposed to what? Symbols? Show tunes? Hieroglyphics?

It is just this simple, there is absolutely no reason that a law should ever be passed if the language isn't completely specific as to what it states.

Doesn't the language specifically state what it states? Or did you mean the language should specifically state its' intent? Or did you mean the language should be specific as to its' intent? Or did you mean the language used in the law should be specific? Or did you mean the intent in the law should use specific language?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

Herr Mulder

Definition of poverty used as I quoted.
Income
used to compute
poverty status:


* Money income

o Includes earnings, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans’ payments, survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates, trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child support, assistance from outside the household, and other miscellaneous sources.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html


*Your mystical man who owns a 1G house may not have any income for the year. But does he eat for that year etc??? Where does the money come from for that? Would it not be captured by the definition used above?

*swallowing nettles may not be easy but I think you will find it feels good in the end

No--unless the guy who owns the million dollar home had income (as defined by the IRS--not Schwartz) he's going to be included in "poverty". Not only that, there are literally millions of small business owners who report very little income--they are all included as well--are you denying that happens?

Again, maybe you missed it from above. THIS IS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!--the king of the theory of wealth redistribution. This article talks about that the SAME STATISTICS YOU QUOTED. If it is inaccurate, say why. All you are doing is quoting statistics. Let me highlight a few of the more important for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/op...eberstadt.html

The most widely quoted federal statistic on deprivation and need in modern America is the "poverty rate" - a measure tracking households with annual incomes below a "poverty threshold" established at the beginning of the Johnson administration's "war on poverty" in the 1960's and adjusted over time for inflation. According to the latest poverty rate estimates - released by the Census Bureau on Aug. 30 - the total percentage of Americans living in poverty was higher in 2004 (12.7 percent) than in 1974 (11.2 percent). According to that same report, poverty rates for American families and children were likewise higher last year than three decades earlier.

You see that--VERY SAME STATISTIC YOU ARE QUOTING.

On its face, this momentous story should have shocked the nation. After all, it suggested (among other alarming things) that Washington's long and expensive campaign to eliminate domestic poverty has been a colossal failure. So why did that poverty rate report end up mostly buried deep inside daily papers?

Shocked the Moore-Ons (basset, combsdon, Schwartz, et al!) If you have a modicum of intelligence and an understanding of how this statistic is used, you'd understand the significant problem with it.

Maybe because many news editors, like policymakers in Washington, know the dirty little secret about the poverty rate: it just isn't any good. Truth be told, the official poverty rate not only fails to calculate trends in impoverishment with any precision,it even gets the direction wrong.

Apparently the Moore-Ons don't know this!

The profound flaws in our officially calculated poverty rate are revealed by its very intimation that the poverty situation in America was "better" in 1974 than it is today. Those of us of a certain age remember the year 1974 - in all its recession-plagued, "stagflation"-burdened glory. But even the most basic facts bearing on poverty alleviation confute the proposition that material circumstances in America are harsher for the vulnerable today than three decades ago. Per capita income adjusted for inflation is over 60 percent higher today than in 1974. The unemployment rate is lower, and the percentage of adults with paying jobs is distinctly higher. Thirty years ago, the proportion of adults without a high school diploma was more than twice as high as today (39 percent versus 16 percent). And antipoverty spending is vastly higher today than in 1974, even after inflation adjustments.

This is just commons sense--anyone around in the 50s and 60s (aka comsbdon and Schwartz) know damn well is was much worse than for the poor.

In the face of such evidence, [b]what do you call an indicator that stubbornly insists that the percentage of Americans below a fixed poverty threshold has increased? How about "a broken compass?"

Or a "Moore-On Compass!"

The soundings from the poverty rate are further belied by information on actual living standards for low-income Americans. In 1972-73, for example, just 42 percent of the bottom fifth of American households owned a car; in 2003, almost three-quarters of "poverty households" had one. By 2001, only 6 percent of "poverty households" lived in "crowded" homes (more than one person per room) - down from 26 percent in 1970. By 2003, the fraction of poverty households with central air-conditioning (45 percent) was much higher than the 1980 level for the non-poor (29 percent).

What about these statistics Schwartz? Are you denying their accuracy? I know for a fact we didn't have air conditioning until I was about 12 years old and while we weren't poor, we were close to it.

The poverty rate is out of step with all these other readings about deprivation in modern America because it was designed to measure the wrong thing. The poverty rate has always been derived from reported household income. (Exigency played a role here: at the start of the war on poverty 40 years ago, those income numbers were already available from the Census Bureau.) But a better gauge of a household's material deprivation is not what it earns, but what it spends. When we look at spending patterns, we immediately see a huge discrepancy between reported incomes and reported expenditures for low-income Americans.

In the Labor Department's latest Consumer Expenditure Survey (2003), the average reported income for the bottom fifth of households was $8,201, while reported outlays came to $18,492 - well over twice that amount. Over the past generation, that discrepancy widened significantly: back in the early 1970's, the poorest fifth's reported spending exceeded income by 40 percent.

Do you see that Schwartz? The reported income of the bottom fifth of households is $8,201 while the outlays are $18,492! Now I know this is going to be tough for combsdon and bassetman to grasp, but that's not possible--something wrong. Do you think it might be the reported income?

Unfortunately, economists and statisticians have yet to come up with a clear explanation for this gap (which is not explained by in-kind payments like food stamps or other assistance). The divergence may be in part a measurement problem: partly a matter of income under-reporting, partly a consequence of increasing income variability in our more "globalized" economy. But whatever its cause, it does drive home the unreliability of using reported household income as a benchmark for poverty.

Yeah--no chance people are under-reporting their income!

For now, however, we should recognize that America has already achieved far more success in the war against want than our sorry poverty rate can admit - and that we need much better guidance systems for the anti-poverty battles still ahead than this one, arguably the single worst measure in our government's statistical arsenal.

Honestly--you three (basset, schwartz, and combsdon) are the trial lawyers worst nightmare (if he's representing a defendant) and his best friend (if he's representing a plaintiff) because you have to have gullible people who are easily fooled by elementary arguments with subtle flaws (but obvious if you really stop and think about them) like this poverty nonsense to get a big dollar award!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Again, not to belabor the point -- I am not debating the morality or immorality of abortion, but the scope of the 14 th ammendment, which I think is very broad and can only be limited by other clear and compelling interests -- not abstract moral ideology, no matter what legal entity is pushing it.

Let be clear here. Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with right to privacy, abortion, discrimination, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to peaceably assemble, right against self-incrimination etc etc etc.

My last shot. The 14th Amendments' only real function is to make federal constitutional restrictions and/or prohibitions as well as federal laws applicable to the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

If you take the time (which you won't) and read the actual court opinions you will find that the court states something like "the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination as applied to the state of Georgia through the 14th Amendment yada yada yada"

[GoneForNow]

Mulder.....Don't you get tired of posting the same argument and facts over and over and over and over again and again and again. You know in another two months one of our resident bleeding hearts is going to post "the poverty rate is increasing while CEO's are paid even more!" This place has really become SSDD
(Same Shat Different Day).

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Mulder

You liberals are constantly squaking about...(fill in the blank).

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

LIN
The wisest eductor I ever had was a professor that taught us that nearly all statistically data, results and conclusions are pure fiction.

Statistics are a branch of mathemaatics and as such have no truth value. If you are taking of the use of statistical tests well I agree that they are often used by persons who have no idea how to use them. The results are read by persons who have no idea how to interprete them.

Having said that I suggest that the US Census Bureau does know how to use statistics. Mulder usuallydoesn't read much. They website given gives their understanding of the population their are sampling and its limitations.

However the definition used has been used since the 1960's and there is every reason to believe that the Census Bureau has made efforts to keep their yearly data comparitive.

Mulders claim was that poverty is the lowest ever. In fact the lowest was at the end of the Clinton years and it has risen every year since

Mr. Mulder may feel that when 5.4 million people are added to those below the poverty line is a staistical blip.

Plschwartz, I happen to agree with you that the poverty level has risen. Further, the middle class are getting more and more overcome with debt (and or they are working more hours then ever to keep up with trying to juggle everything). I have noticed for years that the difference between pay level for high level executives goes up exponentially higher, while middle and lower class wages keep going down. Of course, you need to calculate in lower wages due to things that aren't always measured, like higher cost for insurance rates including monthly premiums and out of pocket expenses, benefits packages as a whole diminishing faster then ever. On this note, according to Time magazine, fortune 500 companies are going bankrupt and Congress is letting these companies off the hook when they claim bankruptcy for contractual retirement plans. So, people can now begin to expect that they will not get a retirement and will have to work until they die. I can't stand Dem's or Republicans, but at least Clinton vetoed the bill to take away the fresh start many people needed in bankruptcy protection. And yessiree, this idiot Bush has quite the double standard. Interest rates for credit have skyrocketed for many struggling middle class to become pure robbery by corporations.

(I have a contract that my grandfather signed in the early 1900's to purchase an brand new Indian motorcycle. He was to pay two payments of something like $12.50 straight to the Indian company, with No interest.) Sure, credit companies that charge 2 or 300 times what the cost of what you purchased was over the life of the loan aren't thiefs!!


And under this administration, Citizens now have No Way out- the debt will be a lifetime of financial destitude. Meanwhile, big companies get to pay their ?Executives? so much that they drive themselves into bankruptcy and the people that worked their backsides off for the retirement they expect will never see a dime of it. Well, that statistic claims that number of people that will never see a dime of their federally guarenteed retirement has multiplied by 400 times. I'll check this fact. Though, the only fact here is Mr. Reverse Robin Hood Bush (and or his administration) is Stealing from the middle income and poor to pay the rich.

As a Libertarian, I don't know how to solve this problem. I certainly will never believe that government should step in and restrict the salaries of executives. I always tend to believe that if government would just get the hell out of everything the problems would resolve themselves in a pure free market. With regulation to business, zoning laws, and taxes wiped out, there would be a lot more competition out there. I still believe if company A is paying a small group of executives more then the entire staff of the company put together, that business won't stay competitive and be shut down by smarter competition. Though, the fact is, even at your basic level, regulation is maming the small guy the most. In our state you now need a license to braid hair. Small town barbers are being run out of business from regulation and all the costs that go with it. Our choices to get our hair done for blasted sakes is all with big money chains.

In this country, noone can afford to become a private business owner. The cost to regulation means - training costs to be eligible for a bogus 'Certificate' and many other costs that prevent people from striving for the American dream. The regulatory barrier is minimally several thousand to become self employed. It used to be you didn't even need a car to get a job. A car is minimally a several thousand dollar barrier to become employed since today Nothing is Local!! Add them up, we don't need statistics to see what is happening right in our neighborhoods.

Now back to the point, even if you know how to analyze statistics, the statistics that are given to you are 'chosen' to be given to you, if they come from gov Especially. So, first and foremost, I would always be wary of that. Second, when you research any given topic, there is Always cause and effect. The researcher will persuade you to believe that a particular variable has been detriment to the effect. Most times, this is simply untrue. It has been a very long time since I studied statistics, but the bottom line is there are many variables and researches choose which ones they focus on so this scues (sp) the results.

I agree with you 100% of course. Poor Mulder maybe can read, but he can't see beyond the nose on his face. (Sorry Mulder, you are of the brainwashed army). Then he runs around calling the rest of us stupid.

We are only stupid here if we believe Mulder is an authority on anything. Sorry Mulder

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

LIN
The wisest eductor I ever had was a professor that taught us that nearly all statistically data, results and conclusions are pure fiction.

Statistics are a branch of mathemaatics and as such have no truth value. If you are taking of the use of statistical tests well I agree that they are often used by persons who have no idea how to use them. The results are read by persons who have no idea how to interprete them.

Exactly my point--you seem to ignore it.

Having said that I suggest that the US Census Bureau does know how to use statistics. Mulder usuallydoesn't read much. They website given gives their understanding of the population their are sampling and its limitations.

However the definition used has been used since the 1960's and there is every reason to believe that the Census Bureau has made efforts to keep their yearly data comparitive.

The problem is they are limited by what is reported on a tax return! Its you liberals who are always telling me about how the rich hide their income, but for this analysis you ignore it. The Census Bureau doesn't intereview and asset search all 300,000,000 Americans. Come on--use your common sense (you had it at one time)--garbage in and garbage out. The statistic on poverty has never been accruate because of the limitations of how you define it and how you measure it. When you think poverty, you think of some poor welfare mother, but the statistic includes much much more.

Mulders claim was that poverty is the lowest ever. In fact the lowest was at the end of the Clinton years and it has risen every year since.

Mr. Mulder may feel that when 5.4 million people are added to those below the poverty line is a staistical blip.

Now you are mistating what I said--I never said it was the lowest ever this year! Of course there are going to be fluctuations--as I said, during recessions, it will rise (generally). It rose in 2000 because that was a recession year even though you liberals refuse to acknolwedge it (you'd like to believe it didn't start until after Clinton left office, which is a stupid argument anyway, because even if it started in the first or second quarter of 2001, Bush was not in office long enough to have any affect).

But what's your solution Schwartz? You, bassetman, combsdon--you all remind me of the employees at the company that sit around and gripe about the problems--criticize the bosses and the management and talk about how you could do better. Are you suggesting we give more money to the poor? Should be raise the minimun wage? Double it? Put a limit on CEO salaries? No more than a million a year? What exactly is it that you would do that would cut the poverty rate in half?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by stormylin

Plschwartz, I happen to agree with you

You just lost all your crediblity, Schwartzy!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Mulder.....Don't you get tired of posting the same argument and facts over and over and over and over again and again and again. You know in another two months one of our resident bleeding hearts is going to post "the poverty rate is increasing while CEO's are paid even more!" This place has really become SSDD
(Same Shat Different Day).

I do, but I just can't help myself--its like acloholism or addiction to gambling or sexual addiction! We should have a term for it. What do you think?

Moore-On Co-Dependency Disorder? (MOCODD)?

Ignorance Repugnancy Syndrome? (IRS)?

No--I have it--the acronym fits!!!

Half-Arsed Analysis Aversion? (HAAA)

[Wino]

Interesting article by Scott Burns of the Dallas Morning News

THE VULNERABLE BOTTOM OF THE INCOME PYRAMID

A visit to the glitzy section of any city in America will give you the idea that we don't know what to do with all the money we have. You get the same impression at any high-end mall in suburbia.
In fact, income thins out pretty quickly. According to the most recent IRS statistics on tax returns (for 2003), households needed at least $295,495 to be in the top 1 percent, $130,080 to be in the top 5 percent, $94,891 to be in the top 10 percent and $57,343 to enter the top 25 percent.

Yes, you read that right. If your household income is over $57,343, you're well toward the front of the line when the checks are handed out. If your income is below $29,019, you sink into the bottom 50 percent.

Increasingly, those in the bottom 75 percent --households with incomes below $57,343 -- are starting to look like a long, slow train wreck. Without recognition of the problem, the entire country could find itself in dire straits pretty quickly.

Let me show you why.

In the 10 years from 1993 to 2003, income has continued to concentrate. While the bottom 50 percent of earners had 14.92 percent of income in '93, they had 13.99 percent in '03. Similarly, the top 25 percent have enjoyed an increased share of total income, rising from 62.45 percent in '93 to 64.86 percent in '03. This is pretty much what you'd expect over a period of rapid change. Those with leverage increase their incomes. Those without leverage don't.

Over this period the dividing line income for the bottom 50 percent has risen from $21,179 to $29,019, rising 4.3 percent a year. Had the income line risen only with inflation it would have risen to $26,504. And that's an important fact: Even the bottom of the income scale has gained some purchasing power over the period -- about $2,515 (see table below).

Combine that additional income with declining interest rates on home mortgages, a period of weak to declining rents for apartments, a multitude of low-interest and no-interest offers from stores and car manufacturers, and the people who do a lot of the heavy lifting in our society have been getting along.

Those with earning power have done a lot better than just get along. Earners at the top 1 percent line have gained $63,040 in purchasing power. Earners at the top 10 percent line have gained $12,198 in purchasing power, while seeing the portion of income they spend on income taxes decline from 20.2 percent to 18.5 percent. Earners at the top 25 percent line have gained $5,570 in purchasing power.


This table shows the income needed to be at each income level in 1993 and 2003. It also shows the income needed in 2003 to have the same purchasing power as in 1993, calculates the gain in real income for each level, the percent of income paid in tax, and the average tax rate as a percent of income..................................

......................(See table at link below) ...................................

....................Unfortunately, gains for the bottom 75 percent are now vaporizing. It would take a major hit to destroy the $12,198 gain for those at the top 10 percent line.

That isn't the case for those in the bottom 50 percent. Their entire $2,515 purchasing power gain since 1993 may already be history. Skeptics should consider this brief list:

With the typical household consuming about 1,000 gallons of gas a year, an increase from $1.50 a gallon to $3 a gallon means a purchasing power loss of $1,500.

Rate increases for electricity and natural gas.

Rising medical co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses for health care plus rising employee health-care insurance premium costs. Premium costs were up 10 percent in 2004 alone.
Another way to see the same thing is to examine wage gains. In 2004 the average weekly earnings of private, nonagricultural workers rose by only 2.2 percent. The consumer price index rose by 3.3 percent over the same period. This year has been a replay -- year-over-year wage gains are running less than 3 percent, while inflation has ramped up toward 4 percent. And all this assumes we believe the CPI is an accurate reflection of the inflation we experience.

Can the politicians work magic with tax reform?

No way. If the federal income tax was simply eliminated for every household in the bottom half, it would only liberate about 3.46 percent of their income -- less than inflation for one year.

Bottom line: Unless there are some real wage gains for working stiffs -- soon -- we're heading for a recession.

More and table at following link

http://www.uexpress.com/printable/pr...01&uc_comic=sb

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

Interesting article by Scott Burns of the Dallas Morning News



More and table at following link

http://www.uexpress.com/scottburns/?..._date=20051101

Oh God, spare me. This is the same crap the liberals have been feeding us for the past 40 years--the "income gap widening" crap I've been hearing ever since I can remember yet the poor keep gettting better off--people keep improving their lifestyles--adding luxuries and things we wouldn't think of having 30 years ago. The gap is always going to be widening because percentages work like that! This is friggin basic math. An increase of 10 percent income for the high wage earner and the low is going to widen the gap. In fact, a 50% increase in the low wage earned and a 10% in the high is going to widen the gap.

Honestly, are you people really this stupid or are you just looking to argue?

[Mulderator]

Here, let me show you Moore-Ons again how they are tricking you.

1960---poor guy makes $5,000, rich guy makes $1,000,000.

2000. Poor guy's income increases by 300% to $15,000; Rich guy's income increases by 50% to $1,500,000.

Income gap widened by $490,000 or by 50%! (evem though poor guy's income increased 6 times as much as rich guy).

Now the Liberal's weekly comes out with an article like Wino just cited and all the liberals are SHOCKED!!! They are outraged--its a disgrace--the rich keep getting richer; the income gaps are widening, blah, blah blah.

Moore-Ons--its friggin basic math--the income gap is ALWAYS GOING TO WIDEN!!!.

You can't look at that, you have to look at PURCHASING POWER OF THE POOR. Do the poor have more purchasing power today than 30 or 40 years ago? Absolutely--that is undisputed.

If you can't look at this intelligently, you are going to make the wrong decisions. You Moore-Ons are going to kill the golden goose because you think the "poor" are getting screwed. If you think its bad now for the lower income levels, try taxing the businesses into oblivion and see how bad it gets.

[Mulderator]

Bottom line: Unless there are some real wage gains for working stiffs -- soon -- we're heading for a recession.

Uhh--I can make that prediction--we are heading for a recession--sure as God made little green apples, there will be another recession!

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Oh God, spare me. This is the same crap the liberals have been feeding us for the past 40 years--the "income gap widening" crap I've been hearing ever since I can remember yet the poor keep gettting better off--people keep improving their lifestyles--adding luxuries and things we wouldn't think of having 30 years ago. The gap is always going to be widening because percentages work like that! This is friggin basic math. An increase of 10 percent income for the high wage earner and the low is going to widen the gap. In fact, a 50% increase in the low wage earned and a 10% in the high is going to widen the gap.

Honestly, are you people really this stupid or are you just looking to argue?

Burns is not a bleeding heart liberal. I'm not stupid and not trying to argue. You really should read the article before assuming so much. He's talking more about the dire straits the lower middle class is approaching...........and they keep this economy running................without them you are up a **** creek without a paddle.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Exactly my point--you seem to ignore it.



The problem is they are limited by what is reported on a tax return! Its you liberals who are always telling me about how the rich hide their income, but for this analysis you ignore it. The Census Bureau doesn't intereview and asset search all 300,000,000 Americans. Come on--use your common sense (you had it at one time)--garbage in and garbage out. The statistic on poverty has never been accruate because of the limitations of how you define it and how you measure it. When you think poverty, you think of some poor welfare mother, but the statistic includes much much more.



Now you are mistating what I said--I never said it was the lowest ever this year! Of course there are going to be fluctuations--as I said, during recessions, it will rise (generally). It rose in 2000 because that was a recession year even though you liberals refuse to acknolwedge it (you'd like to believe it didn't start until after Clinton left office, which is a stupid argument anyway, because even if it started in the first or second quarter of 2001, Bush was not in office long enough to have any affect).

But what's your solution Schwartz? You, bassetman, combsdon--you all remind me of the employees at the company that sit around and gripe about the problems--criticize the bosses and the management and talk about how you could do better. Are you suggesting we give more money to the poor? Should be raise the minimun wage? Double it? Put a limit on CEO salaries? No more than a million a year? What exactly is it that you would do that would cut the poverty rate in half?

Figures, I have a quote with the word educator spelled wrong hitting time and time again. I need a much Bigger window, then what they give us to review and edit Before I post!!

Anyway, Mulder we are in a sense saying about the same thing. Though that doesn't mean I disagree with Schwartz either. My ex looser husband has had weekly incomes of over $3000. He did masonary (sp), and more recently he sells used cars. My adult son worked with him for 3 days and in 3 days, the ex made well over 3000 dollars. But, by government standards he can only pay me $13.00 a week, because he lives in poverty. The fact is the bar owner is loaded (and the coke dealer) because of my ex's income. And that is all cash business as well. My husband did taxes for a bit, and he came home and told me that a nurse in my doctor's office husband is a mason and he reported something ridiculous income like, 15,000 for the year. I can assure you, he probably made that in a week. One more, I bought a business and the prior owner handed me all of their tax statements. She claimed she made $7,000 a year. Though, she had about $150,000 thousand in expenses. I can tell you, she never put ONE DIME into improving that building. Though, funny they had a 6 or $700,000 dollar house they just built. Hmmm, where did the expenses to the building cost of that home go? And her husband didn't work. So, where did the money come from for that house? I have all the details, all of their home shopping was expensed to the daycare, their car and insurance health- then the criminal gets booted out by the state because she is a risk to the children, and collects unemployment benefits off of me as the predessor business. They walked with $140,000 pure profit on the sale of the property. I suspect, this one is in that poverty statistic.


Mulder is right and your are right Schwartz. The poverty level is rising, but we really can't determine the percentages because the statistics don't account for all of the variables that are critical to measure this.