In any case, as magekillr has been saying, poor is relative to other factors, such as the wealth of a country. Yes, there is an absolute poor baseline: no money at all, living on the street/in a shack, no food, no water, nothing. Yet...this is not a "Western" problem. There are relatively few people in such living conditions in the United States, Canada, the UK, and so on. What will it take for you to say that there is a problem with wealth distribution in the West? To have a majority of people living as if in the "absolute baseline definition of poor?"

 

To be very blunt, your story and the point you make irritates me (an implicit fallacy of composition), and is exactly the reason the definition of poverty needs to be changed in the U.S.

 

1 in 7 Americans are poor by our definition. Here is a heart-wrenching example of someone who is poor (happens to be the poorest person in America). Therefore, we need to do more for all people classified as "poor" by our definition, including the ones that happen to be well off.

 

I don't quite understand your statement. Are you saying my family should not have been classified as poor? Or are you saying that others who are classified as poor should not be?

 

All I was arguing against is people who think poor is absolute. That's all.

 

No, he's saying that just because your family happens to fit an ideal definition of poor doesn't mean everyone happens to be like that and we shouldn't assume they are.

In any case, as magekillr has been saying, poor is relative to other factors, such as the wealth of a country. Yes, there is an absolute poor baseline: no money at all, living on the street/in a shack, no food, no water, nothing. Yet...this is not a "Western" problem. There are relatively few people in such living conditions in the United States, Canada, the UK, and so on. What will it take for you to say that there is a problem with wealth distribution in the West? To have a majority of people living as if in the "absolute baseline definition of poor?"

 

To be very blunt, your story and the point you make irritates me (an implicit fallacy of composition), and is exactly the reason the definition of poverty needs to be changed in the U.S.

 

1 in 7 Americans are poor by our definition. Here is a heart-wrenching example of someone who is poor (happens to be the poorest person in America). Therefore, we need to do more for all people classified as "poor" by our definition, including the ones that happen to be well off.

 

I don't quite understand your statement. Are you saying my family should not have been classified as poor? Or are you saying that others who are classified as poor should not be?

 

All I was arguing against is people who think poor is absolute. That's all.

 

No, he's saying that just because your family happens to fit an ideal definition of poor doesn't mean everyone happens to be like that and we shouldn't assume they are.

 

Obviously. I am going to give up one day trying to articulate my arguments because it seems people misinterpret them too easily.

 

I was just making a point that poorness is relative to the society, even from neighborhood to neighborhood. Heck, a 15 minute drive, if that, from my old house in Florida and you end up in a literally rich-person neighborhood, where lots of lands smaller than the house we (as in my family now) live in now are $500,000.

So wait. You're not considered "poor" if you have a hand-me-down computer and hand-me-down television? Lol, I bet you just had your second square meal of the day after saying that. What a fat country I live in.

 

But I find it hard to have pity on people who use the government for necessities while spending on luxuries.

 

I agree with you there.

 

Yes, what a "fat" country you live in:

 

The struggle to eat: As Congress wrangles over spending cuts, surging numbers of Americans are relying on the government just to put food on the table

 

I didn't say all Americans are fat. In fact, I wasn't even referring to obesity - moreso the "fat" spoiled mentality some Americans have, which leads to other Americans starving because they are supposedly already well off with their hand-me-down outdated technology.

 

Now, after telling you this heart-warming story, I will admit my family was better off than a large portion of the world. However, by American standards, I was not better off than most Americans. Yes, there were individuals with worse conditions, heck even next door. But must you degrade one person's suffering with another person's? Is that what this society has come to? "There are people with worse living conditions out there!" Does that help me, or the other individuals living in the Western standard of poverty, to survive? No it does not. Must you help the worst off before you help your fellow man? Must you donate to a country you'll never visit, just to say you helped, and ignore the homeless man on the street near you who is in just as terrible conditions?

 

Well said.

I don't quite understand your statement. Are you saying my family should not have been classified as poor?

No.

Or are you saying that others who are classified as poor should not be?

Setting an arbitrary threshold (such as some dollar amount per year, some percentage of the distribution of income, or a percentage of the maximum income) and then designating that everyone that miss the threshold will receive assistance until they make the threshold doesn't work for me.

 

"You're a single person and make $12,000 per year? Here, have these vouchers so you can eat your fill, pay your rent, and have money left over to buy a television subscription so you can be content with where you're at in life" doesn't work for me.

There needs to be an incentive for people to get out of poverty and off public assistance, and clearly the definition we have right now isn't cutting it.

"You're a single person and make $12,000 per year? Here, have these vouchers so you can eat your fill, pay your rent, and have money left over to buy a television subscription so you can be content with where you're at in life" doesn't work for me.

There needs to be an incentive for people to get out of poverty and off public assistance, and clearly the definition we have right now isn't cutting it.

 

The idea of starting from scratch and attempting to get into a good college might be possible, but it's very far-fetched for most. In some cases, it is literally a privilege to be able to work your ass off. I agree that we shouldn't just be giving out "free lives" to anyone asking for it, but the class gap we're facing right now, paired with the fact that the correlation between hard work and wealthiness is far from substantial and is actually rather luck-based, I'd say, as someone pretty impartial to most political affairs, that our economic standing is pretty lopsided. Of course those who had Dad buy them a car, enroll them into a good college, or hand over the family business don't like to listen to this point.

At this point I'm wondering if the people arguing against helping poor people are against public education. Of course I know many libertarians are against it by shear principle, but one would think that everyone here arguing against these basic automatic stabilizers should also be arguing against any and all social goods.

 

Also, like Ginger, I am against protectionism and will almost always support free trade policies.

 

And my mistake, CrustyGoblinFoot.

There needs to be an incentive for people to get out of poverty and off public assistance, and clearly the definition we have right now isn't cutting it.

 

 

An incentive to get out of poverty? Are you kidding me?! Now you're just making me angry. I've lived my life so that my family worked our butts off and we still nearly lost our house. Yes, we still had cable tv, but the amount of money we spent on that and our internet is miniscule compared to the amount it takes to "get out of poverty." Yes, there is a small percentage of people who take advantage of the welfare system and spend their money recklessly because they can, but the vast majority of people in it use welfare to live at least slightly more comfortably while still struggling to "get out of poverty." Why should a family have to work 16 hour days at 2-3 jobs just to get by, with a little bit of pride in the fact that they can watch some tv when they are done, while someone else can spend 8 hours a day in a comfy office and never even think about how much money they're making because they know they'll have plenty.

 

An incentive to get out of poverty, my good man? What about being poor sucks? Not like you would know.

Yes, there is a small percentage of people who take advantage of the welfare system and spend their money recklessly because they can, but the vast majority of people in it use welfare to live at least slightly more comfortably while still struggling to "get out of poverty."

Source this.

 

Why should a family have to work 16 hour days at 2-3 jobs just to get by, with a little bit of pride in the fact that they can watch some tv when they are done, while someone else can spend 8 hours a day in a comfy office and never even think about how much money they're making because they know they'll have plenty.

Life is unfair. People in their abilities are inherently unequal. Taking everything away from everyone is the only way to make everyone equal, but even that solution injures some people more than others.

We can't all win the lottery.

 

EDIT:

And you know what? Unless you live by yourself in BFE, You don't need a subscription to watch t.v.

Yes, there is a small percentage of people who take advantage of the welfare system and spend their money recklessly because they can, but the vast majority of people in it use welfare to live at least slightly more comfortably while still struggling to "get out of poverty."

Source this.

 

Why should a family have to work 16 hour days at 2-3 jobs just to get by, with a little bit of pride in the fact that they can watch some tv when they are done, while someone else can spend 8 hours a day in a comfy office and never even think about how much money they're making because they know they'll have plenty.

Life is unfair. People in their abilities are inherently unequal. Taking everything away from everyone is the only way to make everyone equal, but even that solution injures some people more than others.

We can't all win the lottery.

 

EDIT:

And you know what? Unless you live by yourself in BFE, You don't need a subscription to watch t.v.

I will admit to not being able to source that, as that kind of statistics are not available because if we knew who was abusing welfare, they wouldn't be. I will say that I have heard this statistic before, years ago, and that I know far more families who need welfare than those that abuse it, and that I choose to believe in the general goodness of people, which you obviously do not.

 

Life is unfair? Sure as heck is. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make it less unfair. Abilities so often have so little to do with where you are financially. Luck is the deciding factor. Not everyone can win the lottery, sure, but those who don't shouldn't have to scrape together a living. I would never suggest taking everything away from everyone. That's got nothing to do with anything.

 

I have no idea what BFE is, so I do not understand that statement. EDIT: I'll take it you mean the middle of nowhere, from what google says. And I don't know where you live, but I'm not sure how you're implying to watch tv without a subscription.

I will admit to not being able to source that, as that kind of statistics are not available because if we knew who was abusing welfare, they wouldn't be.

 

I can: 1.9% of payments were fraudulent or were abused.

 

Meanwhile:

 

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

In my experience, people who have never experienced anything close to poverty, being poor, or whatever you want to call it, typically have the least amount of sympathy for and almost no understanding of it. I'm seeing a lot of that here.

 

Yes, we still had cable tv, but the amount of money we spent on that and our internet is miniscule compared to the amount it takes to "get out of poverty."

 

This couldn't be put any better.

I will admit to not being able to source that, as that kind of statistics are not available because if we knew who was abusing welfare, they wouldn't be.

 

I can: 1.9% of payments were fraudulent or were abused.

1.9% of payments 10 years ago are known to have been abused. That doesn't mean that the other 98.1% of all payments were not abused, or that the figure is the same 10 years later.

Try again.

Are you kidding? No, I know you're not. You ask for a source, he gets one, from a congressional hearing no less, and you complain about it not being accurate? I don't see you providing any source contradicting it saying that more than that amount was abused, or that it has changed significantly in the past ten years, which I sincerely doubt, given that the economy is now worse and people are more likely to need to rely on unemployment payments.

I will admit to not being able to source that, as that kind of statistics are not available because if we knew who was abusing welfare, they wouldn't be.

 

I can: 1.9% of payments were fraudulent or were abused.

1.9% of payments 10 years ago are known to have been abused. That doesn't mean that the other 98.1% of all payments were not abused, or that the figure is the same 10 years later.

Try again.

It was a source. If you're going to say sources are inaccurate, why bother asking for one?

 

 

I don't know why you hate welfare so much. If you're seriously worried over the budget, worry about the taxless corporations or excessive military spending or whatnot.

 

Contrary to popular belief, people on welfare really wish they weren't on welfare.

 

@Ginger on Protectionism: I admit it is not the best solution, but I feel it will help the US economy if we targeted only the American corporations shipping goods into it and not put these prices back onto the customer or employees (through forceful means) it will work to improve the economy and thus get more people with jobs and out of poverty. But it is to tyrannical to be of any effectiveness.

People don't need incentives to get out of poverty. From personal experience, welfare (at least in Canada) does not give you enough to live on. You cannot afford even a small apartment with welfare, nevermind food plus other expenses. If you're lucky enough to get on disability then maybe you can afford those things. Then what? It's not a life to live. I know for certain it's not fun. Many people want to get jobs, but they get discriminated against because they have disabilities. Sure, it's against the human rights code, but it still happens regardless. If anyone tries to get employment, the only jobs available or call centers or jobs at Wal-Mart which pay less than what disability offers.

 

The only way you can get people out of poverty is by creating jobs. You don't create jobs by slashing taxes. In theory it works, yes, but in practice it doesn't^[1]. All it does is put more money into the pockets of the rich, and the middle class and lower get poorer and poorer. More tax cuts means more services cut, which in Canada means things such as healthcare or other important services that many people take for granted.

 

Please don't pretend that you know what it's like to be in poverty. It's not a fun experience at all. I can vouch for that.

Are you kidding? No, I know you're not. You ask for a source, he gets one, from a congressional hearing no less, and you complain about it not being accurate? I don't see you providing any source contradicting it saying that more than that amount was abused, or that it has changed significantly in the past ten years, which I sincerely doubt, given that the economy is now worse and people are more likely to need to rely on unemployment payments.

I'm not claiming that "there is a small percentage of people who take advantage of the welfare system and spend their money recklessly because they can, but the vast majority of people in it use welfare to live at least slightly more comfortably while still struggling to 'get out of poverty.'"

 

It was a source. If you're going to say sources are inaccurate, why bother asking for one?

If I claimed, "The vast majority of Americans are White" and someone asked me to source it, I can do exactly what magekillr did and say

77.1 percent of the total population are White.

There are many things wrong with this. First off, I cited the year 2000 census. The information is no good anymore. Second, the 77.1 percent is a misrepresentation of their findings -

In the total population, 211.5 million people, or 75.1 percent, reported only White. An additional 5.5 million people reported White and at least one other race. Within this group, the most common combinations were White and Some other race (40 percent), followed by White and American Indian and Alaska Native (20 percent), White and Asian (16 percent), and White and Black or African American (14 percent). These four combination categories accounted for 90 percent of all Whites who reported two or more races. Thus 216.9 million, or 77.1 percent of the total population, reported White alone or in combination with one or more other races.

- if you go by "only white", it's actually 75.1

By the way, that's drastically different than 2010, where non-Hispanic white is 64.7%, which I wouldn't consider to be a "vast majority".

I understand statistics can be flawed, but misuse of welfare funds does not seem to be as ambiguous as divisions of ethnicity are.

I will admit to not being able to source that, as that kind of statistics are not available because if we knew who was abusing welfare, they wouldn't be.

 

I can: 1.9% of payments were fraudulent or were abused.

1.9% of payments 10 years ago are known to have been abused. That doesn't mean that the other 98.1% of all payments were not abused, or that the figure is the same 10 years later.

Try again.

 

I provided you with a statistic that is unlikely to change regardless of the time it was taken. 10 years ago is not an outdated statistic for something on this sort of measure. It's been consistent for a long time: welfare abuse and fraud is not abundant, and constitutes roughly 1-3%.

 

Here's stats from the United Kingdom's benefit fraud from 2009: 2.2%.

 

It's like you think people want to be on welfare. They don't. It's humiliating, and they want dignity in their own work just like everyone else. It's always the poor who are gone after while banks are committing hundreds of times greater damage in mortgage and housing fraud, or defense contractors who continue to get billions in corporate welfare.

 

Full disclosure: as an aerospace engineer, I receive indirect benefits from our abundant military spending, and I want the defense budget cut in half.

Let's move this along.

 

What if the cable TV comes for free in a cheap Internet deal? I am personally am on one such deal so they definitely exist. The job market is becoming increasingly focused around the Internet, so much so that getting an email address if you don't already have one is now actually a requirement under the Jobseekers Agreement signed between a claiment for unemployment benefits in the UK and the JobCentre.

 

Is it wrong to still receive welfare support in that situation?

I provided you with a statistic that is unlikely to change regardless of the time it was taken. 10 years ago is not an outdated statistic for something on this sort of measure. It's been consistent for a long time: welfare abuse and fraud is not abundant, and constitutes roughly 1-3%.

If you actually look into the statistics you're providing, most (overpaying/underpaying) were determined by sampling random people's files administrative side, comparing what they are getting to what they should be receiving (i.e. "family of four making X per year"), and then reporting on that. I don't know how the fraud report is generated, but I assume it's "if convicted of fraud", which is a much more stringent definition than most of us would apply (And suffers tremendously from type II errors - Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson were found "not guilty," but I seriously doubt they were innocent of murder.)

 

 

Its just like when the duration of unemployment benefits are cut (in countries where people that receive unemployment are unlikely to move into a different social program), people find jobs much sooner. You can't prove fraud in every case, but the change in average unemployment duration is very suspect.

I provided you with a statistic that is unlikely to change regardless of the time it was taken. 10 years ago is not an outdated statistic for something on this sort of measure. It's been consistent for a long time: welfare abuse and fraud is not abundant, and constitutes roughly 1-3%.

If you actually look into the statistics you're providing, most (overpaying/underpaying) were determined by sampling random people's files administrative side, comparing what they are getting to what they should be receiving (i.e. "family of four making X per year"), and then reporting on that. I don't know how the fraud report is generated, but I assume it's "if convicted of fraud", which is a much more stringent definition than most of us would apply

 

Just give it up already. The level of fraud in government programs or government insurance is no different than in the private sector, it accounts for a very low percentage, and it's not widespread. Moreover, the level of fraud is so paltry that increasing funds to find evidence of fraud is more likely to cost more money than just giving the money out in the first place. You're so concerned with such a small amount of money simply because you feel these people are undeserving parasites, and were born in the wrong family. Rather than seeking to correct these injustices of the accident of birth, you react with "I got mine." That's fine, you're perfectly allowed to hold those beliefs (and I'd rather you be honest about it, as you were with Flying). But don't complain about how much money is being lost over it when there are plenty of other bigger fish to fry: just say you don't think we should be helping people unless they're dying in the street.

 

Its just like when the duration of unemployment benefits are cut (in countries where people that receive unemployment are unlikely to move into a different social program), people find jobs much sooner.

 

They find jobs much sooner because they're like, "oh [cabbage], which do I choose: a substantial paycut and a movedown on the social ladder despite everything I've worked for, or nothing." Choosing nothing doesn't feed the family. It's not evidence of fraud, it's evidence that they're unwilling to take a paycut (with good reason). There's also evidence -- which I can find if you want -- that taking that lower paying job that they otherwise wouldn't take hurts longterm growth. (edit: currently looking, just saw it maybe 4 days ago).

Just give it up already. The level of fraud in government programs or government insurance is no different than in the private sector, it accounts for a very low percentage, and it's not widespread.

You'd best be trolling, especially after posting that youtube video.

 

Moreover, the level of fraud is so paltry that increasing funds to find evidence of fraud is more likely to cost more money than just giving the money out in the first place.

Aren't you full of it.

Every $1 the U.S. government invests in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud saves $1.55. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009)

 

You're so concerned with such a small amount of money simply because you feel these people are undeserving parasites, and were born in the wrong family. Rather than seeking to correct these injustices of the accident of birth, you react with "I got mine." That's fine, you're perfectly allowed to hold those beliefs (and I'd rather you be honest about it, as you were with Flying). But don't complain about how much money is being lost over it when there are plenty of other bigger fish to fry: just say you don't think we should be helping people unless they're dying in the street.

You're pretty good at misrepresenting my views.

 

I don't think it's the government's job to provide everything for everyone. If rich people need to give "their fair share," from their earned income, then people receiving public money should be giving "their fair share" as well, in the form of a less than comfortable life.

I've lived without a cell phone, internet and cable at home for most of my life (actually, I still don't have a cable/satellite subscription right now), and I've survived.

Play this game: http://playspent.org/

 

Aren't you full of it.

Every $1 the U.S. government invests in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud saves $1.55. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009)

 

Uh, no, I'm not full of it. You were discussing welfare programs. Medicare and Medicaid aren't welfare programs (and even though Medicaid provides help to poor people, almost 50% its funding goes to nursing homes; Medicaid is also the cheapest health care out there). Health care fraud is a result of doctors misreporting and criminal groups, not poor people cheating the government.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/13/news/economy/health_care_fraud/

 

Also, too, the Pentagon has a greater amount of fraud and waste than Medicare.

 

I don't think it's the government's job to provide everything for everyone. If rich people need to give "their fair share," from their earned income, then people receiving public money should be giving "their fair share" as well, in the form of a less than comfortable life.

 

Rich people benefit when the rest of the society benefits. Moreover, rich people have more to gain from government, so they should be paying for more of it.

 

What's funny is that I also believe a lot of the ways food stamps and welfare are currently structured keep people trapped in poverty, just like you do; the only problem is that this is a direct result of people like you. For example, many people want to tell people what to spend their benefit money on. Minnesota has been discussing the possibility of banning poor people from holding cash. Others want to force people to only buy certain types of food with their food stamps. It's a load of crap. We shouldn't even have specific programs for specific needs (food stamps, housing assistance, etc). It should just be a straight cash allowance. Give people the freedom to spend their money how they see fit, and you'll see better results. Rather than being forced to spend the money on all food, the parent might sacrifice some food but instead spend more money on their kid's education. This results in future generations moving out of poverty rather than having generations stuck in the cycle.

 

Crap like this keeps people stuck in poverty:

 

House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP - and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid - could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.

 

And then we have the facts: Misuse of welfare money is minimal, data show

Play this game: http://playspent.org/

 

For kicks I played it and made it through the month with 113$ to spare. A lot of the 'sacrifices' are things my family does on a daily basis to get by. I guess for some people they would be inconvenient but honestly I've done it so long that it seems normal to me--except skipping out on the doctor to save money. My family has extensive health problems and right now I'm the only one in the house with decent medical government (thanks to the state), but not everyone in my family has been so lucky in putting off medical issues. There have been some drastic issues due to that.

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.

 

Then those Americans aren't "poor".

 

Poor is a term that describes lacking. As in food, shelter, and bare comforts. Not because you aren't lucky enough to have those fancy shmancy gadgets or stuff like that. I hardly doubt 1/7 Americans are considered poor.

That is more than 44 million Americans living in a developed country....I've read sources indicating that only 10% of Americans lack basic needs. I think the

census has done a terrible job or the article miscalculated.

 

Also, anyone can have money in their bank, wallet, and still have spare change...It doesn't take less than 536 million people in the world to have that...