I guess that's lights out for the Cain campaign

That was something I was trying to point out, that begining around 1970 or so we entered a "new norm" of poverty rates. The highs and lows have remained within those parameters for 40 years now. One of Coin's initial questions (besides the dumb one) was proof of an increase in the rate. He posted a chart that does indicate an increase in rate... that is normal along the "new norm"... yet stated he "doesn't see it".

As for the poverty rate stabilizing, then decreaseing... that would be along the "new norm"... but the economic collapse was bigger than most other depressions so I expect it may take a bit longer (maybe another decade or so) for that to happen, with luck. I say that because while we took that economic hit relatively well, it's also left us vulnerable. A second hit would be bad, a third would probably collapse the economy.

 

I guess you are not interested in discussing the matter if that is the extent of your knowledge.

 

I don't think you're a pessimist. I have backyard chickens and plan to upgrade by adding meat rabbits and a small garden next year. I don't have a lot of faith in our economy turning around, no matter who is in the White House.

 

You don't discuss anything. You wanted to know what poor is. If you don't understand what poor is, get a dictionary.

 

I hope we don't take a second or third hit during this economy, I really do. If we do, the poverty rate will escalate far more than most people can apparently imagine. I know of a wealthy couple, who once held six-figure jobs, but lost them after the collapse. They live in their car now, their children too. The majority of people in America are, at the moment, living a comfortable life. That can change in an instant. Personally, I'll be fine, I can survive almost any circumstance.

 

The problem as I've stated is that coming to any kind of definition of poor people or poverty seems to be as far as they want to go. Okie especially. He obsesses about the definition but never poverty itself. My guess is that he uses this method as a distraction so that he doesn't have to actually talk about something he doesn't want to acknowledge exists. Certainly poverty can be defined in any number of ways but the poor are pretty much pooled in the middle of just about any definition you choose to use. They are the issue, not how one side or the other choose to define them. You know, at this point I can't even remember why we started talking about the poor. Typical Partisan Lines thread.

 

It seems as though the conservatives on this forum would like the lefties to give their definition of "poor", but they either can't or refuse to do so. Without a definition, how can the topic even be discussed rationally? You need a baseline and then we can discuss the topic. But, I wasn't the one who brought up the "increasing amount" of poor people in this country. I just asked for a definition of "poor" so that the topic could be discussed responsibly. But, if the lefties insist on spinning the topic, not answering the question, and using diversionary tactics, well, what's new? That's standard operating procedure for lefties.

 

Is that your answer to every topic? Calling someone a "DUMB ***" (whatever that is) or telling them to go "poof" themselves (whatever that means)? If you can't reasonably discuss a topic, why even bother posting?

 

Since when have we ever been held to that standard here? My God! Just stop the fiddling and notice the fires all around you for a change.

 

There are some left-leaning forum members here who can actually discuss a topic without reverting to spin tactics (or name-calling as is the wont of your cohort*). Try it sometime.

*Noun
cohort (plural cohorts)

1. A group of people supporting the same thing or person.  [quotations ▼]
2. (statistics) A demographic grouping of people, especially those in a defined agegroup, or having a common characteristic.
   The 18-24 cohort shows a sharp increase in automobile fatalities over the proximate age groupings.
3. (military, history) Any division of a Roman legion; normally of about 500 men.
   Three cohorts of men were assigned to the region. [quotations ▼]
4. An accomplice; abettor; associate.

 

You both say that poverty is increasing. All we are trying to determine is what it is that you are saying is increasing.

 

Any Subject but the one you will not talk about eh?

 

What part of being poor are you dumb about? The "not being able to afford" part? Nope, it's asking to define what poor is that's dumb. Squirm all you want... it's still a dumb question. People who are less fortunate than yourself deserve more respect than having their status questioned in such an obnoxious way.

 

Learn how to be less obnoxious and watch how my comments become more pleasant.

 

Like he hasn't been partisan himself... on a site called "Partisan Lines" no less.

 

The chart should be enough evidence, and that was posted by Coin (and another by Moen). That you two are continuing to deny that poverty is increasing, despite the evidence your buddy Coin provided, that's on you... not us.

 

The only thing that's obnoxious is that you're calling them "poor" without even defining what "poor" is. That's like me calling you ignorant, but not defining the term.

In this case, however, you seem ignorant since you can't present facts supporting your assessment. Are you ignorant?

 

Calling me "obnoxious" is a subjective term. I'm disagreeable with most of the positions you take and sometimes ask for supporting documention or facts. If you think that's being obnoxious, well, theres nothing I can do about your thought process. I don't consider it obnoxious and I'm certainly not going to agree with you just so you'll be more pleasant.

 

This chart, posted by Coin irrefutably shows the poverty rates increasing, though people 65 and older have the lowest rate they have ever had. Since roughly 1970 (or about 1969 actually) the mean rate has remained steady. It's also interesting to note that, according to this chart, recessions have had no measurable inpact on the trend at the time. If the poverty rate was increasing, no measurable effect occurred during a recession. If the trend was decreasiing poverty rates, no measurable effect occurred during a recession. This suggests recessions had no measurable affect on any trend that was currently underway.

Here's a few definitions for the dumb from Webster:

Poor: Lacking material possessions: Having little to no means to support oneself: Needy: Impoverished.

Destitute: Implies such great poverty that the means for mear subsistance such as food and shelter are lacking.

Indigent: Implies such relative poverty as results in a lack of luxuries and the endurance of hardships.

Impecunious: Applies to one in a habitual state of poverty and suggests that this results from personal practices.

Dumb: Stupid: Moronic: See: "Define poor."

 

You. Define. Ignorant.

...and obnoxious ...and callous. Your question though was mearly dumb.