Comments about ‘Nation's poor at 49.7 million, 3 million higher than official rate’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 6 2013 3:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, si puede, si puede, si puede

You get what you voted for. You wanted food stamps, you got em. You wanted more government, you got it.

This trickle up poverty is working alright. Soon all of us, except for government officials will be poor. Just like North Korea, China, Mexico etc.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

How can this be happening in America,
when the top 5% saw an increase of 125 times their net worth?

Every penny of gains in this country since 2007 has only gone to that top 5%.

Time to face the facts -- Trickle down economics ISN'T working!

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

It's not the rich's responsibility to make sure I have enough money. The government is not more expensive because Mitt Romney made a lot of money. If Mitt Romney was poor, the government expenses would be the same.

It's my job to ensure I gain sufficient skills to be in high demand.

Only a lazy person would blame a rich person for their personal financial struggles.

Ralph
Salt Lake City, UT

I may be barely able to afford the necessities, but I will still defend the ability of the rich to make obscene amounts of money.

Someday, I may be a billionaire too, so I will keep fighting for the rights of the super-rich to enjoy all of their quasi-legally gained money, unrestrained by the pesky government.

I'm told be people I trust that the playing field is level.

Badger55
Nibley, Ut

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

-Abraham Lincoln

milner
Centerfield Sanpete, UT

That`s discusting! Considering there are around 300 Million people in the USA, one sixth are poor!I think we have too may people in public office making too much money!

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

BO's trickle up poverty is working. What a great legacy!

Another article in the print edition this morning talked about how the stock market is going higher while personal income remains stagnant - all on BO's watch. The uncertainty he engenders, Obamacare, etc, have caused companies to slash costs, as as the economy inches along, revenues incresae while costs are kept down, thus corporate income goes up, as does the stock market. Companies are not willing to invest in new product development or additional employees with the uncertainty of Obamacare and an overly agressive EPA looming. Companies are sitting on almost 2 trillion in cash because they do not trust BO.

worf
Mcallen, TX

At the expense of the producers, government has created a nation of consumers.

Out numbered, the producers are being transformed into consumers, and total control will soon belong to political leadership.

Observe the world around you, and see what's happening.

Political decisions are based on power, and control,--not the benefit of the citizens.

Healthcare or control?

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

These People are poor by design....Obama can't have people succeed or they won't vote for him......he needs those lazy, slothful Liberal loyalists to praise and worship him like he is the second coming.....so now he has more than when he started....to say this was unintended is foolish and stupid!

vern001
Castle Rock, CO

Did anyone one here actually read page 2 of the article?

""The primary reason that poverty remains so high is that the benefits of a growing economy are no longer being shared by all workers as they were in the quarter-century following the end of World War II," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan economist.

"Given current economic conditions, poverty will not be substantially reduced unless government does more to help the working poor."

In the 1950s, the highest marginal tax rate was 90%, and yet everyone did better. Today the very rich pay a smaller percentage of their income than a school teacher or a fire fighter. Doesn't anyone see a problem with that?

When the rich and powerful manipulate the political system to give themselves lower taxes, special favors, subsidies, etc. etc....that's not rewarding work, that's rewarding a deeply corrupt system that harms most of the country.

worf
Mcallen, TX

About 50 million on food stamps.

If each food stamp feeds three, than half of all Americans are government fed. Add the number of school children being fed with those on unemployment, disability, etc.

49.7 million might be a low figure.

Wasn't Head Start, and other programs, meant to curb the trend of increasing poverty?

It seems to create it.

Beware of government healthcare, and what this country will look like in a few years.

Badger55
Nibley, Ut

Vern001,
I would argue that the biggest difference between the 1950's and today is the number of children growing up in single parent homes. 4 out of 5 households were occupied by married couples in 1950 and the poverty rate was 11.2%. It has been shown in study after study that a child is more likely to be in poverty after 18 if they grow up in a single parent home. In 2010, the percent of families living in poverty among married couple families was 6.2%. Poverty among single parent families was 27% and single mother families was 29%. There are few cases where an individual cannot make their life the way they want it. The problem today is accountability. No one wants to take responsibility for their situation.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments