So I got to the part of my (liberal biased) political science book that discusses the poverty line. I had trouble getting an exact estimate on how many people were at or below the line (I'm assuming because it wouldn't seem as high if they did that), but it did show that a severe number of blacks and Mexicans where below it, and of course more single people (particularly single parents were below it).

The poverty line is $20,000. How they get that is by taking a family of four's food expenses for a year and multiplying by three. I think that this is biased. While I think it is very very very hard to live on 20k in a family of four, and I agree that that is a very realistic number (two parents working minimum wage 30 hours a week would pull about that in a year), but I do not agree that that is the poverty line for a single person. Do they divide that number into a third? or even by half?

If it were divided into a third the person would make roughly $6,600 a year and work about 22 hours a week at minimum wage ($6). If it were divided by half, they would make roughly 10k a year, and they would work 32 hours on minimum wage of $6. That would meet the poverty line, if you were single.

So my question is this: If minimum wage puts a person above poverty (if they work full time) then why are there impoverish (healthy) people? Can they not find work? And, if they can not find work, then wouldn't supply side reaganomics be the best solution? Meaning that we should give money to businesses in order to create more jobs for people. This is the total opposite of what democrats seem to want. They prefer to go at it with a demand side approach by giving people more money to spend.

__________________
It doesn't matter who we elect, it doesn't matter what they've done or who they've done, what is important is what they actually do. Too many politicians are politicians - they like to talk about useless issues and keep people in the dark about the real issue: money. I will always care more about what the government tells me I have to spend my money on, opposed to some unborn assassination. Freedom is the right to chose, on everything.

The fed. website says that the poverty line for a single person is $10,400. States have their own definitions for the thresholds at which someone can qualify for assistance.

I am not sure what you mean by "democrats going at it from the demand side".

In reality, both Dems and Repubs give corporations money to create jobs. Usually, that money comes in the form of big tax breaks or waivers. Haven't you heard about corporations shopping around for the state that will give them the best deal to build a plant? States often spend quite a lot of money since they often have to provide necessary infrastructure, as well.

The only able bodied adult US citizens living in poverty do so by choice.

It's as simple as that.

Depends if the stupid qualify as able bodied

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

This statement draws attention to the reality that all wealth should be considered property of the government to disperse as necessary for the betterment of most people. "Giving" money to either businesses or individuals through tax breaks, refunds, or tax cuts should only be done at the pleasure of strong, central rulerers immune from the demands of the public they serve. Otherwise, the temptation to form bonds between the rich and the governing class becomes too great to resist.

I realise it's hard for some people but there are ways out , moving to an area that needs workers, retraining , working 2 jobs , I do think 10,400 is A little bit low for the poverty line

__________________
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself."
Benjamin Franklin
http://i27.tinypic.com/2hn2lpv.jpg

I did ask a question. Why is Billy the only one that has answered it?

__________________
It doesn't matter who we elect, it doesn't matter what they've done or who they've done, what is important is what they actually do. Too many politicians are politicians - they like to talk about useless issues and keep people in the dark about the real issue: money. I will always care more about what the government tells me I have to spend my money on, opposed to some unborn assassination. Freedom is the right to chose, on everything.

Some people are just messed up in the head to varying degrees.

Some people have descended into drug abuse.

However I think a huge , if not the primary, factor is that they've had a bunch of kids but the daddie(s) left. This actually seems to be the status quo in many areas of Philly where I live. They don't even refer to the men as "fathers," instead they are "babies daddy". or some variant on that.

So lets say they're at home and the kids grandma is raising the three kids (also very common). The single mother then needs to make $24,800 to clear the poverty line for the five people in the household, and that isn't happening.

You could argue that she should give the kids up for adoption. But the problem is that if the kids stay institutionalized the state has to pay even more money(I think), and I believe few kids who are older than babies actually get adopted. This is further complicated by the system actively discouraging mixed race adoption of African Americans.

The only people that go for extended periods without jobs, and are able to work, are people that do not wish to work.

Keep in mind that at any point in time in the US about 4.5% of the population is unemployable or unwilling to work, which is why unemployment will never be at zero.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. " - Alexander Hamilton

The thing that cracks me up about those under the poverty line...

They may have nothing to their name, literally nothing, but they will have a big screen television.

Ah well, remember that American's poor is the envy of the world's poor. Our poor honestly aren't that bad off in relative comparison. In comparison to an average America, I suppose so though. Not my problem though.