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.
When we have a president that is a democrat we magically have no homeless people. Also unemployment figures seem to be analyzed in a different way. What we do seem to have gained as a trade is many more stories about congressional members.
The media stopped doing its job at some point during the Democratic primaries in 2008 - that why we aren't discussing Madame President.
The homeless and destitute don't have enough money to support the advertisers sponsoring the news shows or papers. These people have no commercial value and can be ignored.
If the are politically partisan news divisions, it does make the incumbent politicians look bad too.
I read and see things about poverty all the time. It is not hard to find and due to me living in an area with a large degree of poverty we see reports on it frequently.
I think the views displayed in the OP go both ways. Many times conservatives/GOP members do not discuss the issues they are passionate about either when "their guy" gets into the White House. The expansion of the government via Medicare Part D and the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security comes to mind along with the right ignoring all the war mongering and the spying that took place during republican administrations as well. I won't get into the fact that the Tea Party started all their protest right when Obama came into the picture lol. As if there was no government waste or over taxation issues during the Bush years.
All of this is why I don't subscribe to any political party or affiliation. All are a bunch of hypocrites.
Another thing I noticed when Democrats are in the house, more people are said to be rich. Same income as before but Democrats call them rich so they can rally the low income against them and tax the chit out of them.
The anti-war protesters also wake up during conservative administrations and start protesting again.
They have been amazingly absent, haven't they? This is despite the fact that we have had a lot more body bags come home this administration, along with SIGNIFICANTLY more maimed service members. Oh, and don't forget those barely mentioned drones.
Then again, this forum does not really give poverty much discussion either.
Our congress and president seem to wash their hands of the issue after some band-aid legislation, like extending unemployment or proclaiming K-12 schools should serve breakfast.
This forum for the most part talks about what the media reports.
Like when Obama brought up income inequality, we had a month of threads about that, same with gun control, the bridge closure, now it's Putin.
This forum in most cases just mirrors the talking points of the day, nothing more.
I'm old enough to remember the non-stop news reports during Reagan's presidency, homelessness and poverty, and hunger were on the TV almost nightly.
So here we are in our fifth year of a stagnant economy and even with a 50 year high in poverty in the US, the media is staying away from reporting of those struggling in poverty.
Are Americans going about their busy lives, oblivious to the plight of the poor? Or do we mollify our concerns by throwing cake crumbs at the poor with unemployment extensions and expanding Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSDI and ACA subsides?
Have we made it permissible to ignore plight of the poor, because we provided enough of a social welfare subsistence, so that the poor can hang out there on the ragged edge, sort like a person in a comma on life support?
Nationally, median household income decreased by 1.3% between 2010 and 2011, from $51,144 to $50,502. While the majority of states reported a decrease in median household income, 14 states reported increases.
Between 2010 and 2011, the national poverty rate increased from 15.3% to 15.9%. This represents an almost 5% increase in the number of persons living in poverty; more than 48 million people were living in poverty in 2011.
In 2011, more than 6.5 million households were spending more than 50% of their income for housing expenses, which was a 5.5% increase from 2010.
Median income from 2010-2011 decreased by 1.3% but we were spending 5.5% more on housing expenses. Total median income since 2008 has fallen by 4.1%.
In 2012, 46.5 million people (15.0 percent) were in poverty.
In 2012, 26.5 million (13.7 percent) of people ages 18-64 were in poverty.
In 2012, 16.1 million (21.8 percent) children under the age of 18 were in poverty.
In 2012, 3.9 million (9.1 percent) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.
The overall poverty rate according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure is 16.1%, as compared with the official poverty rate of 15.1%
Because Reagan was a republican and the same owners of the press then, own the press now, and more of their eggs are still in the Democrat basket and Obama is their golden goose.
We don't talk about it because the 1% control the media and the government. You get to being the 1% by ensuring that the 99% have a lot less than you.
There is no reason to uplift the poor, because uplifting the poor makes the wealthy less wealthy.
What? Are you one of those who believes that if I make an extra dollar an hour that is a dollar less that you can make? Do you even hear yourself here? How could putting more money in people's pockets to spend make anyone "less" wealthy?
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.
