After nearly thirty years of the “Reagan Revolution”, the triumph of the conservative movement,. America ends up, in published data, as the worst nation on its poverty level of any “developed” nation.
The Economic Policy Institute has published data that show the following:
22 nations in Europe, plus Canada, and Australia and New Zealand and Japan, have a lower poverty rate, with the US having a 17.3 percent rate.
25 nations have a lower child poverty rate, with the US having a 17.1 percent rate.
America has a more stratified class system than any of the other democracies, and we always hear that we do not wish to be like Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
Certainly, we have a lot to be proud of in our history, but we also have to recognize that the standard of living has declined under the “Reagan Revolution”, and now we are trying to dig ourselves out, and to refuse to recognize the high poverty rate, and particularly its effect on children, we are harming the future of our nation!
I suggest you take a look at the whole picture. The rate of poverty was dropping tremendously before Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. You know the world didn’t begin in 1965. http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/does-the-war-on-poverty-fight-destitution-or-subsidize-it/ .
Households in all age groups have made gains compared with their predecessors over the course of many decades. The average income gains for all age levels rose 45% from 1967 to 2010. But the incomes of the oldest households have risen four times as sharply as those of the youngest ones. As a result, incomes of the oldest households, which have been lower than those of younger households, are catching up.
In households headed by adults younger than 35, the median adjusted annual income in 1967 was $38,555, compared with $49,145 in 2010, an increase of 27% (all figures are expressed in 2010 dollars and standardized to a household size of three). By contrast, in households headed by adults ages 65 and older, the median adjusted annual income in 1967 was $20,804, compared with $43,401 in 2010, an increase of 109%.
Source Pew Research Center . http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/change-median-adjusted-household-income-age-householder-1967-2010
On my income, if I had a child or two to support, I would be considered borderline poor.
On average a person who depends on government get more than four times as much taxpayer money per year -$25,953 than in 1962 $6,437 adjusting for inflation.
As the saying goes the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
Parents would be more able to provide for their children with opportunity if jobs paid enough to make ends meet. Instead, our economy is flooded with McJobs and the always low wages at Walmart.
Actually it is not that the rich get richer, but the older one gets the more assets and wealth you have. Thus a 65 yr old will have more wealth accumulated that a young under 30 yr old.
Abosultely not true. I’m in my 30s and my elderly relatives are not as rich as I am and we’re all certainly not as rich as the top 1 or 2 percent (e.g., the millionaires and billionaires).
If my family was on Downton Abbey, we’d be the servants in the kitchen.
@Former Conservative,
Exactly right! Some people obviously do not know what it means to live on a fixed income, often just Social Security, and have to constantly worry about every penny you spend. Not all seniors are living high on the hog. Just paying for medications is a struggle for many seniors.
Looking at the articles posted on various topics, it becomes clear that Intellectual Takeout is a one-stop shop for what I like to call hyper-conservatives, or those who deny the reality of climate change, disdain the feminist movement and believe that those who make the most money in the U.S. should receive the biggest tax breaks.