Thursday, June 30, 2011

Struggling economy, struggle at the bottom

The New York Times published data from the Pew Research Center last Saturday (June 25, 2011, A17, "Polling Poverty and Pessimism").  The graph linked opinions about our struggling economy to household income.  Here's what the report revealed:

"You have had trouble getting or paying for medical care for yourself or your family in the last year."  Nine percent of those earning more than $75,000 said yes; 28% of those earning $30,000 to $75,000 said yes; and 51% of those earning less than $30,000 answered in the affirmative.

"You have had problems paying your rent or mortgage in the past year."  Eleven percent of those in the top income bracket said yes; 25% in the mid-bracket said yes; 45% in the lower bracket replied yes.

"It is very or somewhat likely that you may be laid off over the next year."  Of those in the top income range 12% said yes; in the middle 20% said yes; while 36% at the bottom answered yes.

"It is very or somewhat likely that you may be asked to take a pay cut over the next year."  Twenty percent of the top; 26% of the middle and 37% at the bottom income range answered yes.

"You have gotten a pay raise at your current job or gotten a better job in the past year."  Top:  48%; Middle:  44%;  Bottom:  30%.

"Rate the economic condition in the country today as poor."  Top:  41%; middle:  46% and bottom:  50%.


Anonymous said...

Under Obama there are more people on food stamps than any other time in history. What a great legacy!

Larry James said...

Looking past your cynicism with a smile, I'd point out that 1) there are more people in need today and 2) Dept of Ag is doing a better job getting help to families. The problems are far more complex than one administration or anohter. I bet that Pres. Bush managed to get more folks on food stamps than Mr. Clinton below him. What does that prove? Poverty has been on a growth trend line for 30 years. Everything is not about partisan politics; most is about econ development and policy.

Anonymous said...

One can see how socialism has worked in Greece. Soon,under Obama we will be just as bad. Socialism does not work in the long run. It fails when it runs out of other people's money.

Anonymous said...

Fact: The US's main problem is it can't balance its budget. Fact: The tax rate on the top 2% of income earners is the lowest in 50 years. Fact: If we raised that tax (i.e. didn't exend the Bush tax cuts) back to 39% we would put $4TRILLION dollars back in the US budget. Fact: Problem solved.

belinda said...

the majority of the world is socialist and they seem to fare as well or better than the U.S.

Anonymous said...

You're making things up, Belinda. Not only is the more decentralized US marketplace providing vast majority of our citizens with a better standard of living than all but the very rich in other counties, we also distribute more money, food, and knowledge around the world than any other country. Your unfounded assertion reveals the reason you vote Democrat: you are ignorant of the facts.

belinda said...

socialism = highways, public education, law enforcement, courts, etc.

as embarrassed as i am to admit it, i voted almost all republican until the GWB era.

Anonymous said...

If socialism produced only highways, public education, law enforcement, and a court system, I would be a socialist.

I was disappointed with Bush, too. And the McCain guy. RINOs one and all.

Belinda, can you stretch your mind and consider that socialism also includes many other laws, policies, cultural values, and social goals in addition to those you mentioned?

Can you please tell me what socialist country in the world has produced a model society?

Help us out!

belinda said...

so many countries are socialist - Canada, England, Israel. i know the things i listed are not the only traits of socialism, i didn't realize i needed to include an entire list.

why do you post anonymously?

Anonymous said...

five attemps. won't show my post. another lib conspiracy against logic?

Anonymous said...

England is in terrible shape and they know it. The Brits are watching the EU experiment implode with horror. On today's socialistparty[dot]org website (friends of yours, Belinda?) the writers celebrate the ongoing strikes and demonstrations in the UK.

If things are going so well in this socialist country, why are there demonstrations by socialists? The site states the demonstrations are about budget cuts and austerity moves by the UK govt. So, Belinda, is England a socialist country or not?

If the socialists are unhappy about the govt's decisions, then I'd suggest the govt is not as socialist as you might believe. And if the socialist party's arguments are so convincing, why then don't they vote in a strong socialist govt?

Anonymous said...

Canada is a model of mediocrity, at best. With only 35 million people or so, Canada has a simpler set of problems to solve than the US. Plus, without our tourism dollars and our business demands for their products and services, they would be out of operation in days. Liberals may want us to free ourselves from fossil fuels, but Canadians don't; they know what would certainly occur if we quit importing their oil. American capitalism drives the Canadian economy!

And Israel. What a terrible example, Belinda! No American market system, no Israel. They are perhaps more dependent upon the USA than Haiti, albeit in a different manner.

Anonymous said...

C'mon Belinda. Model country please. Just give us ONE (1).

I post anonymously b/c it really bothers Larry. One time, in my honor, he actually disabled the anonymous posting option.