AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Walter Hinteler,

I didn't say it Walter. The lady quoted in the article I posted said it. So are you prepared to say that the data you posted is better than hers? How do you think the data you posted contradicts what she says? How do you think what you posted contradicts any point I have made? I am just reporting what I find.

I do notice several reports of child poverty being up significantly in Germany, however. What are the primary factors for that?

And if child poverty is a problem in even those countries with vast social safety nets for the people, why is that?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't say it Walter. The lady quoted in the article I posted said it. So are you prepared to say that the data you posted is better than hers? How do you think the data you posted contradicts what she says? How do you think what you posted contradicts any point I have made? I am just reporting what I find.

Well, I posted the latest official data as well as the most recent survey.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do notice several reports of child poverty being up significantly in Germany, however. What are the primary factors for that?

And if child poverty is a problem in even those countries with vast social safety nets for the people, why is that?

What the quoted report says: Child poverty rates have drifted upward since 1991, and have been increasing more than the rates for the overall population since the mid-1990s. In part these changes are due to increasing poverty among children from households headed by noncitizens. The other main reason is the large child poverty in the Eastern states.

The poverty rate in e.g. the UK and Germany is much lower than in the USA, btw, especially, when we take the same basis.

I want to add, however, a personal note, Foxfyre: you quite often complain that people don't read your links. And then you don't answer.

I answered to your questions.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I'm sorry Walter, but I don't understand what you're saying. I don't see that what you posted or the links you posted contradicted what I posted. Nor do I see that you answered my question about what the primary factors are for increased child poverty in Germany.

If you see it differently then explain how.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Certainly you are aware of the different methods to rate poverty, Foxfyre: relative poverty measure ("Laeken") in the EU, while in the USA the absolute poverty conceptis used ("Orshansky method").

[To show the differences:in 2000, 23.5 percent of the US population lived below the poverty line if the official EU poverty estimation method is used. Following the same estimation method, poverty levels in 2000 were 13.3 percent in Belgium and 10.4 percent in Sweden. However, when using the official poverty estimation method of the USA, poverty rates for 2000 are 8.7 percent in the USA against 3.6 percent in Belgium and 6.7 percent in Sweden.]

The reason for child poverty in Germany is to be seen in changes in the welfare system and the economy.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I am not interested in rating poverty. That would be interesting for another discussion. I am discussing Walter Williams' thesis that government forcing people to be in servitude to other people has unintended negative consequences. One of those consequences that appears to be identified is an increase in child poverty and what factors are involved in that.

I don't care what ratios exist when you compare the USA poverty rate with Germany or the UK. I do care that child poverty seems to be rising and to be of concern in all three.

So changes in the welfare system and the economy are the only factors to be noted in Germany re child poverty? There is no significant factor of single parents included in that in Germany? The USA and the UK do think that single parents are a significant factor in the USA and the UK.

Also in countries where there are such extensive social safety nets provided for the people, how is it that there is poverty at all?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am not interested in rating poverty. I am discussing Walter Williams' thesis that government forcing people to be in servitude to other people has unintended negative consequences. One of those consequences that appears to be identified is an increase in child poverty and what factors are involved in that.
...

So changes in the welfare system and the economy are the only factors to be noted in Germany re child poverty? There is no significant factor of single parents included in that in Germany? The USA and the UK do think that single parents are a significant factor in the USA and the UK.

Also in countries where there are such extensive social safety nets provided for the people, how is it that there is poverty at all?

I didn't want to say that those two reasons are the only ones. The are the reasons for the increase.

Rate IS important, because if we used the US method our child poverty rate would be a lot lower, nearly neglectable. (Statistically not as a fact!!!)

Certainly (see my responses and the text in the link[s] above) single mothers are a factor, too - they have less money than couples.

We have poverty (but you are not interested in this, you said) because we have different rating methods.
A low percentage always either fells through the net or doesn't want to participat, by various reasons, for both (you certainly remember this from university).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Why did you take a sentence out of my post? For what purpose?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Why did you take a sentence out of my post? For what purpose?

I answered your question.

Sorry, if you want the whole post quoted, I'll try it again:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am not interested in rating poverty. That would be interesting for another discussion. I am discussing Walter Williams' thesis that government forcing people to be in servitude to other people has unintended negative consequences. One of those consequences that appears to be identified is an increase in child poverty and what factors are involved in that.

I don't care what ratios exist when you compare the USA poverty rate with Germany or the UK. I do care that child poverty seems to be rising and to be of concern in all three.

So changes in the welfare system and the economy are the only factors to be noted in Germany re child poverty? There is no significant factor of single parents included in that in Germany? The USA and the UK do think that single parents are a significant factor in the USA and the UK.

Also in countries where there are such extensive social safety nets provided for the people, how is it that there is poverty at all?

I didn't want to say that those two reasons are the only ones. They are the reasons for the increase.

Rate IS important, because if we used the US method our child poverty rate would be a lot lower, nearly neglectable. (Statistically not as a fact!!!)

Certainly (see my responses and the text in the link[s] above) single mothers are a factor, too - they have less money than couples.

We have poverty (but you are not interested in this, you said) because we have different rating methods.
A low percentage always either fells through the net or doesn't want to participat, by various reasons, for both (you certainly remember this from university).

I do hope the layout is now satisfying.

Otherwise just ask me to try it again. (I'll go to bed, however, soon.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I AM interested in whether single parents are a significant factor in child poverty in Germany no matter how you calculate poverty in Germany, however. And that is what I asked you.

Why did you remove that one particular sentence and only that particular sentence from my post though? I'm really curious what motivated you to do that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I AM interested in whether single parents are a significant factor in child poverty in Germany no matter how you calculate poverty in Germany, however. And that is what I asked you.

Why did you remove that one particular sentence and only that particular sentence from my post though? I'm really curious what motivated you to do that.

Without any doubt there are two typical risk situations for poverty: living in a household with a lone parent, who often works only part time, and living with many people who are dependent on only one income.

In my state, about 55% of all children (under 16) who live on welfare, live a single parents households.

Since this is 5% above 50%, you might call it significant.

Since welfare for a mother with children is close to the poverty line or even below (depending on what kind of welfare etc), it certainly could be said that single parents in Germany are a significant factor in child poverty.

0 Replies

Thank you. That does provide information to add to what I already have on this subject.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It's all free on the internet.

Actually, I'd even thought - from my professional experiences - the number to be higher.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I believe this whole issue about poverty in today's economy is an oxymoron. Over half million people are losing their jobs every month; that means families with children are falling into poverty.

What's the point? It's the economy (stupid!).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe this whole issue about poverty in today's economy is an oxymoron. Over half million people are losing their jobs every month; that means families with children are falling into poverty.

What's the point? It's the economy (stupid!).

Lets see, Obama opposes drilling for oil.
Obama opposes coal fired generating plants.
Obama opposes nuclear.
Obama wants higher taxes for businesses and individuals.
Obama wants to retain lucrative union wages and contracts which have been responsible for driving manufacturing out of business or overseas.
Obama wants to add more regulations to business.
Obama disdains high profits for businesses.
Obama wants to give more benefits to illegal immigrants that take jobs from citizens.
Obama wants the government to spend trillions more, thus placing more debt on taxpayers, both business and individuals.
Obama wants to tax estates much more seriously, thus breaking up and destroying family owned businesses and farms and ranches.
Obama wants to institute cap and trade, which will provide very burdensome costs to businesses.
Obama wants to add more bureaucracies to government, thus saddling higher costs of taxes to businesses and individuals.

And unemployment rises, while Obama is trying to figure out why.

It is the economy, ci.

2 Replies

@okie,

Hey, okie, I'm not Obama. You need to tell him what "you" think. I can't do anything for you!

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Lets see, Obama opposes drilling for oil.

That's a lie. Obama's energy plan includes promoting the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

Why should anyone listen to you if you're unwilling to tell the truth? Please establish the truth of your remaining assertions:

okie wrote:

Obama opposes coal fired generating plants.
Obama opposes nuclear.
Obama wants higher taxes for businesses and individuals.
Obama wants to retain lucrative union wages and contracts which have been responsible for driving manufacturing out of business or overseas.
Obama wants to add more regulations to business.
Obama disdains high profits for businesses.
Obama wants to give more benefits to illegal immigrants that take jobs from citizens.
Obama wants the government to spend trillions more, thus placing more debt on taxpayers, both business and individuals.
Obama wants to tax estates much more seriously, thus breaking up and destroying family owned businesses and farms and ranches.
Obama wants to institute cap and trade, which will provide very burdensome costs to businesses.
Obama wants to add more bureaucracies to government, thus saddling higher costs of taxes to businesses and individuals.

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

okie lies and uses his imagination freely to spew garbage about Obama. It's tiresome when such an ignoramus takes up cyberspace. He makes all kinds of accusations and assumptions that just doesn't have any common sense or intelligent discourse in them.

I guess he enjoys presenting himself as the village idiot.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:
Lets see, Obama opposes drilling for oil.

That's a lie. Obama's energy plan includes promoting the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

I agree that okie overstated the case here. However, it isn't yet clear what the administration will do about either the licenses pending for new nuclear power plants or the opening of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Moreover it appears that "promoting responsible domestic production of oil..." really means no new offshore drilling or no drilling on the North Slape of Alaska. The scientific case for the proposition that neither of these options is "responsible", given the worldwide record of successful, environmentally safe off shore production and our earlier experience on the north slope simply doesn't exist.

The claims the administration makes in these areas are evasive and likely duplicitous.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, You're falling into the same trap as okie; making assumptions about what Obama will do or not do. How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball? He still has more than three years; give the guy a break. Do you know of any president who decided on all the issues during the first few months of their term?

He's made changes to several important things that he has said during the campaign.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:
Lets see, Obama opposes drilling for oil.

That's a lie. Obama's energy plan includes promoting the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.

Not a lie, not all drilling, but alot of it. Read what I said. He opposes drilling. I did not say all drilling, but the truth of the matter is he opposes alot of drilling, enough drilling that it will negatively impact the economy.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

Why should anyone listen to you if you're unwilling to tell the truth? Please establish the truth of your remaining assertions:

okie wrote:
Obama opposes coal fired generating plants.
Obama opposes nuclear.
Obama wants higher taxes for businesses and individuals.
Obama wants to retain lucrative union wages and contracts which have been responsible for driving manufacturing out of business or overseas.
Obama wants to add more regulations to business.
Obama disdains high profits for businesses.
Obama wants to give more benefits to illegal immigrants that take jobs from citizens.
Obama wants the government to spend trillions more, thus placing more debt on taxpayers, both business and individuals.
Obama wants to tax estates much more seriously, thus breaking up and destroying family owned businesses and farms and ranches.
Obama wants to institute cap and trade, which will provide very burdensome costs to businesses.
Obama wants to add more bureaucracies to government, thus saddling higher costs of taxes to businesses and individuals.

Please provide evidence to the contrary of any of them. I threw in he opposes coal and nuclear, which I knew would get peoples attention, and sure he says he is marginally for them, but he has already said if CO2 taxes put coal out of business, so be it, and nuclear he is for, but if he isn't for the measures that are necessary to move the industry forward, then he isn't for it. The devil is in the details, Debra. He can say he is for anything, but if he is in favor of things that penalize or restrict the businesses to such an extent that the industries will suffer and be reduced in size, then he isn't for them in my opinion.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know