One in Seven Americans are [sic] Poor.

[sees_all1]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

 

In other news, 99% of America has less money than 1% of America.

The Census Bureau seriously needs to rethink their definition.

[Duff]

"We must get rid of poverty! Donate to food banks!"

 

I spent a whole damn semester reading books and articles on why food banks, food drives, soup kitchens, and the like all do nothing to address the problem of poverty. Yet that's all our society can think of doing. I don't doubt the hearts of those people wanting to help, but their going about it the wrong way.

[Alg]

"We must get rid of poverty! Donate to food banks!"

 

I spent a whole damn semester reading books and articles on why food banks, food drives, soup kitchens, and the like all do nothing to address the problem of poverty. Yet that's all our society can think of doing. I don't doubt the hearts of those people wanting to help, but their going about it the wrong way.

It's probably much easier to do than things that would actually help to alleviate poverty. People do tend to like the simplest way to be able to say "I'm helping!" whether or not it actually helps.

 

For one, it's a lot easier to get people to agree on this than some kind of large-scale political changes. That said, inb4 the politically minded forumers each list the way their respective political beliefs are the only way to alleviate poverty.

[Duff]

It's funny, that whole semester it was engrained into my mind that food banks etc. was the wrong way of going about it. At the end of the book, the author talked about ways people could get involved and everything to stop better address poverty.

 

I literally though, "Well, I'm one kid in college with other [cabbage] to worry about."

 

I guess I should feel bad.

 

EDIT: Good call, Missingno on the inb4. :P

[sees_all1]

You should read the link I posted... maybe then you won't feel so bad.

[Duff]

You should read the link I posted... maybe then you won't feel so bad.

The huge article was scary. D:

 

Read the executive summary. I see your point. Now it won't bug me nearly as much. :)

[sees_all1]

The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population.

In my opinion, if you can afford cable tv, you should not be considered "poor". But you know, maybe I'm just out of touch with the rest of the world.

[Sy_Accursed]

The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population.

In my opinion, if you can afford cable tv, you should not be considered "poor". But you know, maybe I'm just out of touch with the rest of the world.

 

Yes, yes you are. Although you're more than out of touch, you are extremely privileged and refuse to acknowledge it.

 

You cannot realistically class as poor or in poverty people who have air conditioning, cable tv all the modern amenities, good housing, adequate steady food supply and all other basic needs met including healthcare.

That just artificially inflates poverty numbers.

 

Poverty is when you unsanitary or no housing and inadequate intermittent food supply at best. And have no modern amenities as they had to be sold for like food n stuff.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Yes, I rather do abhor how people consider people with a decent amount of luxuries "poor." Perhaps less affluent then other Americans but not poor.

 

 

The liberal association of "poor" with a good number of people in America who are not stocked with all the latest gadgets and amenities is an idea propagated by consumerist society and the discontented workers who resent that there are white collar workers who make more money than them. I'm sure many people in the world would wish they were "poor" like an American.

[Giordano]

While I do agree the average American 'poor' person is not a hunger-stricken kid who lives in a tin shack, it's not the ideal position for people living in the country with the highest GDP in the world.

 

'Poor people aren't poor' is just an excuse made by the middle and lower upper class to force the blame of poverty into those who are in it, while feeling better about themselves.

 

 

 

As economic recovery is dependent on employment:

 

As I said before and I will always say again, you want American labor to occur, you need to stop American companies from importing their products overseas through tariffs, taxes, etc. But NO...people think they "deserve" their money, 'cos they work hard. Yet [bleep] when immigrants "take my jobs". :roll:

 

 

 

Yes, I rather do abhor how people consider people with a decent amount of luxuries "poor." Perhaps less affluent then other Americans but not poor.

 

[hide]

[/hide]

Trick statement. Remove the fridge, and you're probably richer than the 30%.

[magekillr]

air conditioning, cable tv all the modern amenities

 

You mean like an oven and a stove?! And these people still have the gall to accept food stamps?

 

good housing, adequate steady food supply and all other basic needs met including healthcare.

 

There's a reason why they have those things, and it's because of government provided benefits like food stamps and Medicaid. Did you know that 90% of black children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives?

 

Poverty is when you unsanitary or no housing and inadequate intermittent food supply at best. And have no modern amenities as they had to be sold for like food n stuff.

 

Yeah, maybe in Sierra Leone. Why do people forget that money is relative? The United States is the richest country in the world. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "poverty" or poor people. Sweden has done a much better job with less wealth.

[Kimberly]

If poverty meant that we 'lacked nutritious food' then everyone who is addicted to their fast food fixes are poverty-stricken, onoes.

 

It's another story of welfare babies and state-freeriders. Just hashed up again to form different words to explain the same situation. And saying, "Hey at least we're not like those children we see on tv" might be a nice motivator but it doesn't exactly help you when your house is foreclosed on and you've got no other choice but to invoke squatter's rights until you're removed from the premises.

 

On a side note, the heritage foundation gave me a free pocket-sized constitution booklet but now I keep getting 'letters' from Sean Hannity and stupid drum beating pamphlets about how Obama is killing the nation.

[Sy_Accursed]

modern amenities = tv, dishwasher, wahsing machine, dryer, car, computer, cell phones, games consoles etc..

 

Last I checked government supplied housing isn't "good housing" and if you do have "good housing" and are so poor, downgrade there's more money in ur pocket right there.

Food stamps may supply food but from what I've heard it's far from adequate.

 

Money may be relative, but that doesn't mean just because your country is rich you can class people living a pretty comfortable life with enough to have some unnecessary goods/services as poverty.

[magekillr]

modern amenities = tv, dishwasher, wahsing machine, dryer, car, computer, cell phones, games consoles etc..

 

I was donating some stuff to a thrift store the other day. They had lots of old TVs, and by old I mean "not flat screen," on sale for under $10. That poor people have access to some gadgets and gizmos that poor people didn't have access to 50 years ago doesn't change the fact that it sucks hard to be poor.

 

Last I checked government supplied housing isn't "good housing" and if you do have "good housing" and are so poor, downgrade there's more money in ur pocket right there.

Food stamps may supply food but from what I've heard it's far from adequate.

 

Exactly. Far from adequate. That's why this Heritage Foundation screed is ridiculous on its face (just like everything they put out). Their one goal in life is to suck up to rich people and give them tax cuts. Did you know that if we cut taxes even more than George Bush that we'll have economic growth that has never been seen in the history of America (or any country other than South Korea, for that matter)? That's what Heritage told me:

 

[hide]A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritages analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.[/hide]

 

Money may be relative, but that doesn't mean just because your country is rich you can class people living a pretty comfortable life with enough to have some unnecessary goods/services as poverty.

 

Yeah, they're living such a comfortable life. That's why I said what I said in the beginning:

 

I wonder how many Heritage Foundation policy analysts are deciding they want to cut back and work part time because itd be super easy to raise two kids in DC on less than $20k in salary?

[Alg]

On a side note, the heritage foundation gave me a free pocket-sized constitution booklet but now I keep getting 'letters' from Sean Hannity and stupid drum beating pamphlets about how Obama is killing the nation.

They do at least admit to being conservative, though. A welcome change from similar sources that simply claim to be true :razz:

[Sy_Accursed]

I smell someone back-pedalling given that you are now agreeing with some of my arguments about the state poor/poverty people actually live in; despite them being utterly contradictory to agreeing with:

 

"The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population."

 

As things that poor/poverty have.

 

Also obviously archaic TVs like that aren't a "modern amenity" because they are so dated and below par of the normal consumer standard; but even so the fact you can afford to spend even $10 on a tv shows you have some disposable income so aren't exactly in poverty even if you are poor. And that doesn't even address the issue of paying for cable tv.

[obfuscator]

If you can afford cable tv, internet, multiple televisions, a computer, and gaming consoles, then you aren't poor. You may be not very well off - which certainly merits assistance in itself.

 

But calling people like that "poor" does a disservice to the real poor people in the world, of which there are many.

[magekillr]

You know what's hilarious about this discussion? I constantly see people telling me that people who make $250,000 a year aren't "rich," and coincidentally they're the same people who tell me that people at the poverty line aren't "poor." You know, because people making $250,000 per year are "middle class," even though the average median household income is $50,000 per year.

 

I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

Also, these kids must be figments of my imagination:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK_RnxYdrqU

[Giordano]

You know what's hilarious about this discussion? I constantly see people telling me that people who make $250,000 a year aren't "rich," and coincidentally they're the same people who tell me that people at the poverty line aren't "poor." You know, because people making $250,000 per year are "middle class," even though the average median household income is $50,000 per year.

Exactly. Relative is the key word here. We are talking about the poor in the Western world.

 

I also feel people forget about financial stability, which is not high in this recession.

[Sy_Accursed]

If you can afford cable tv, internet, multiple televisions, a computer, and gaming consoles, then you aren't poor. You may be not very well off - which certainly merits assistance in itself.

 

But calling people like that "poor" does a disservice to the real poor people in the world, of which there are many.

 

I think this is a much more eloquent way of putting what I was getting at.

[magekillr]

You know what's hilarious about this discussion? I constantly see people telling me that people who make $250,000 a year aren't "rich," and coincidentally they're the same people who tell me that people at the poverty line aren't "poor." You know, because people making $250,000 per year are "middle class," even though the average median household income is $50,000 per year.

Exactly. Relative is the key word here. We are talking about the poor in the Western world.

 

I also feel people forget about financial stability, which is not high in this recession.

 

Their definitions of rich and poor change when we're talking about people with actual wealth. People at Heritage will argue that people making $250,000 per year actually have it very difficult if they're living in Los Angeles or something (perhaps they ignore the people who walk by them every single day who are making far less than that). Hmmm, I wonder why this is? Could it be that they have an agenda to lower the tax rate on the very well off and cut services to people who need them? Nooo, couldn't be...

[Kimberly]

If you can afford cable tv, internet, multiple televisions, a computer, and gaming consoles, then you aren't poor. You may be not very well off - which certainly merits assistance in itself.

 

But calling people like that "poor" does a disservice to the real poor people in the world, of which there are many.

 

I think this is a much more eloquent way of putting what I was getting at.

 

Concise, is the word you're looking for.

 

Doing a disservice, though? I'm pretty sure people don't care what they're called when they need assistance. 'Poor' is just a term they use to pinch out dollars and cents and look at the bare minimum to dole out money to. If it so offends your moral sensibilities that someone who needs assistance in America is classed as 'poor' by the government or by their community's own standards of living, then you truly need to grow thicker skin. This argument doesn't serve to put anything into perspective, which is what I think was the original goal, it's just quibbling over semantics.

[Range_This11]

If you can afford cable tv, internet, multiple televisions, a computer, and gaming consoles, then you aren't poor. You may be not very well off - which certainly merits assistance in itself.

 

But calling people like that "poor" does a disservice to the real poor people in the world, of which there are many.

While that is true, we aren't talking about the rest of the world's poverty issues and I think every one of us here is aware that there are billions of people in this world that experience a type of poverty that we will never be able to relate to.

 

We have to keep in mind the context of America. What is the cost of living? What are our cultural values? What are our societal values? What is the value of our currency? While comparing incomes and living conditions across the globe can provide some staggering results, I don't exactly think that it's fair to demonize the American poor. It is immensely difficult to go against the cultural goal of this country, and that is lavish prosperity.

 

Like magekillr said, television sets can be purchased at ridiculously low prices; the same goes for personal computers as well. Now I don't think that a family that is going hungry but has cable television is doing the right thing, but say their cable/internet bill is around $70/mo. Those of us who are buying groceries on a regular basis know that $70/mo is not very much for, say, groceries--especially for an entire family. Like I said, not smart, but not let's not demonize these people.

[obfuscator]

If you can afford cable tv, internet, multiple televisions, a computer, and gaming consoles, then you aren't poor. You may be not very well off - which certainly merits assistance in itself.

 

But calling people like that "poor" does a disservice to the real poor people in the world, of which there are many.

 

I think this is a much more eloquent way of putting what I was getting at.

 

Concise, is the word you're looking for.

 

Doing a disservice, though? I'm pretty sure people don't care what they're called when they need assistance. 'Poor' is just a term they use to pinch out dollars and cents and look at the bare minimum to dole out money to. If it so offends your moral sensibilities that someone who needs assistance in America is classed as 'poor' by the government or by their community's own standards of living, then you truly need to grow thicker skin. This argument doesn't serve to put anything into perspective, which is what I think was the original goal, it's just quibbling over semantics.

 

It doesn't offend me - but I do think this issue isn't black and white and the language used seems to muddy the issue because "poor" is such a vague word.

 

If you can afford cable tv, internet, multiple televisions, a computer, and gaming consoles, then you aren't poor. You may be not very well off - which certainly merits assistance in itself.

 

But calling people like that "poor" does a disservice to the real poor people in the world, of which there are many.

While that is true, we aren't talking about the rest of the world's poverty issues and I think every one of us here is aware that there are billions of people in this world that experience a type of poverty that we will never be able to relate to.

 

We have to keep in mind the context of America. What is the cost of living? What are our cultural values? What are our societal values? What is the value of our currency? While comparing incomes and living conditions across the globe can provide some staggering results, I don't exactly think that it's fair to demonize the American poor. It is immensely difficult to go against the cultural goal of this country, and that is lavish prosperity.

 

Like magekillr said, television sets can be purchased at ridiculously low prices; the same goes for personal computers as well. Now I don't think that a family that is going hungry but has cable television is doing the right thing, but say their cable/internet bill is around $70/mo. Those of us who are buying groceries on a regular basis know that $70/mo is not very much for, say, groceries--especially for an entire family. Like I said, not smart, but not let's not demonize these people.

 

I'm not demonizing. But I find it hard to have pity on people who use the government for necessities while spending on luxuries. Basic appliances are not luxuries - but multiple televisions, cable, internet, gaming consoles - those are luxuries.

 

Hell, I'm not even poor (though not exactly rich) and we don't have cable, or gaming consoles, or multiple televisions just because there is a better, more practical use for the money than that.

[Kimberly]

I can agree with that, but what else would you call it? "Ameripoor?" "Afripoor"? It might be a gray term but anyone with a few ounces of sense that the good Lord gave 'em can see the difference. And if they can see the difference they can see where the issue lies. But the government can't spend times in shades-of-gray so they have words like these to define quality of life. I don't see the issue so much with the word but their enforcement of these policies that are abused and broken, then patchwork'd up so much that true people who need it even briefly can't get it.

 

EDIT: Fixed my post around, I re-read it and realized I didn't like the negative feel it had to it, that wasn't what I was going for. XD I hope this is better.