Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. No hogwash. The number of poor, perentage wise, was less when Reagan left office than when he took office. The number of families below the poverty level was less in 1981 than in 1989.
People living in families who were also living below the poverty line in 1980: 22,601K. In 1988: 24,048K. In 1992: 28,961K. In 2000: 22,347K. In 2005: 26,068K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Those earning less than $20,000/year paid 19.5% of the taxes in 1980 and only 7.0% in 1988. That's one reason why the poor were actually worse off under Carter. And those earning $200,000 and more paid 7.5% of the taxes in 1980 and 24.3% in 1988.
Yet again you resort to this meaningless statistic. Changes in the percentage of total taxes paid by those within nominal income bands tell you nothing at all. You would at the least need to add information on changes in total income. Otherwise, you could simply take half their income away from the poor and give it to the rich, then claim that you did them such a favor by cutting their share of total income taxes so drastically while punishing the rich by making them pay so much more.
N.B.: Nothing in the above is to suggest that this isn't exactly the practice that various Republican administrations have been engaging in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Please post a source, and a link to the source, of the data you posted.
At your request, I have repeatedly pointed in detail to the sources for various data series I have posted. If you are unable to find them, then you are very much in need the opportunity for practice at doing so that I am graciously providing to you free of charge...
People living in families who were also living below the poverty line in 1980: 22,601K. In 1988: 24,048K. In 1992: 28,961K. In 2000: 22,347K. In 2005: 26,068K
Yet again you resort to this meaningless statistic. Changes in the percentage of total taxes paid by those within nominal income bands tell you nothing at all. You would at the least need to add information on changes in total income. Otherwise, you could simply take half their income away from the poor and give it to the rich, then claim that you did them such a favor by cutting their share of total income taxes so drastically while punishing the rich by making them pay so much more.
N.B.: Nothing in the above is to suggest that this isn't exactly the practice that various Republican administrations have been engaging in.
At your request, I have repeatedly pointed in detail to the sources for various data series I have posted. If you are unable to find them, then you are very much in need the opportunity for practice at doing so that I am graciously providing to you free of charge...
Lol. I have never seen such a case of denying the facts!
Please add a source which has a direct link to the statistics you posted.
From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile- from the richest to the poorest- gained income according to the Census Bureau Economic data.
Source: The Cato Institute
The Cato Institute is not the Census Bureau. Did you notice the little note in paren's? By upper limit of each quintile? What this means is that rather than tracking the fate of all the people, or of the average person, within a quintile, they tracked only the single richest person within each quintile. Why do you suppose they chose to present such an odd analysis when far more inclusive, descriptive, and relevant detail are indeed available?
And by the way, that's another example of copyrighted information being posted. I believe the Terms of Service frown on that sort of thing.
As can be seen in figure 13, the change in real family income for the lowest wage earners went up 6%. It did not go down.
Figure 13 says nothing about the real family income of anyone at all. It again describes changes in the statistical boundary between the lowest quintile and the next-lowest quintile. For data on how actual people fared under Reagan, see various of my earlier posts.
The Cato Institute is not the Census Bureau. Did you notice the little note in paren's? By upper limit of each quintile? What this means is that rather than tracking the fate of all the people, or of the average person, within a quintile, they tracked only the single richest person within each quintile. Why do you suppose they chose to present such an odd analysis when far more inclusive, descriptive, and relevant detail are indeed available?
And by the way, that's another example of copyrighted information being posted. I believe the Terms of Service frown on that sort of thing.
Still waiting for the source of the info you posted... a direct link to the site...
Lol. I have never seen such a case of denying the facts!
The words 'posting' and 'denying' are not synonyms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Please add a source which has a direct link to the statistics you posted.
How many official sources for poverty data do you think there are? How hard is it to track that source down? Are you so unused to research that this is something that you are unable to accomplish on your own??? Where is all that right-wing personal responsibility and accountability right about now, huh? You're starting to sound like a welfare basket case in this particular regard. Always asking for a free handout. I know street people who have more personal get-up-and-go than this...
Still waiting for the source of the info you posted... a direct link to the site...
Go fish. I have given you the source, the series, the table number, and the table title. None of this should have been necessary. If you actually knew any of the data you've been talking about, the sources of them would have been already known to you as well...
How many official sources for poverty data do you think there are? How hard is it to track that source down? Are you so unused to research that this is something that you are unable to accomplish on your own??? Where is all that right-wing personal responsibility and accountability right about now, huh? You're starting to sound like a welfare basket case in this particular regard. Always asking for a free handout. I know street people who have more personal get-up-and-go than this...
Still waiting...
The poverty rate was no higher when Reagan left office than when he began. Fact.
Go fish. I have given you the source, the series, the table number, and the table title. None of this should have been necessary. If you actually knew any of the data you've been talking about, the sources of them would have been already known to you as well...
Lol. Please post a link showing the info I posted is wrong...
Still waiting...
The poverty rate was no higher when Reagan left office than when he began. Fact.
No one has disputed that as a fact. What's disputed is the degree of intellectual honesty displayed in posting that fact as being dispositive with respect to the condition of the poor during the Reagan administration. Given all else that went on during that administration, that degree of intellectual honesty can be fairly characterized as next to nil. The data you again refer to above are a deliberately cherry-picked misrepresentation of the facts of those years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
