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.

Medicaid is means tested, how is that not welfare?

 

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

Seriously, what is your fascination with the military in a thread about the definition of poverty? Are you the king of Ignoratio elenchi?

 

 

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.

Unless you're specifically talking about the purpose of government - in the literal sense that was argued in the Federalist Papers, I don't see how the small business owner in Iowa benefits when the U.S. government robs him of 40% of what his company earns in a year, and redirects it to the unemployed people in California so they have extra money to buy "medical" marijuana for their "disability".

Even if you were arguing that it allows individuals to earn wealth instead of spending all their time protecting what they already have, I'd still disagree with you because they're not gaining from the government, they're paying for 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.

[8 year-old's retort]Well I'm rubber and you're glue so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.[/8 year-old's retort]

I don't see how the small business owner in Iowa benefits when the U.S. government robs him of 40% of what his company earns in a year, and redirects it to the unemployed people in California so they have extra money to buy "medical" marijuana for their "disability".

What a horrible oversimplification and base generalization.

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.

Medicaid is means tested, how is that not welfare?

 

So you think if something is means-tested in any form that it's a welfare program? You need a better definition, because Medicare is means-tested, too.

 

And like I said, this isn't a program just for poor people, most of its funds are for the elderly and the disabled. It’s the main way we finance long-term care in this country. If you don’t directly benefit from it, you very likely have a parent or grandparent who does:

 

 

In terms of the “welfare” aspect of Medicaid, by far the largest set of poor people it covers are poor children. Is it your view that these kids should have worked harder to have rich parents?

 

Seriously, what is your fascination with the military in a thread about the definition of poverty? Are you the king of Ignoratio elenchi?

 

My "fascination" is that you and the Heritage Foundation want to cut Medicaid while leaving the military budget -- a military budget that's higher than during the Cold War -- completely intact. You have your priorities out of whack. Although this discussion proves my initial point on why you want to change the definition of what it means to be poor ;)

 

 

Unless you're specifically talking about the purpose of government - in the literal sense that was argued in the Federalist Papers, I don't see how the small business owner in Iowa benefits when the U.S. government robs him of 40% of what his company earns in a year, and redirects it to the unemployed people in California so they have extra money to buy "medical" marijuana for their "disability".

 

Okay, I am done with you. Whenever someone refers to taxation as robbery, they're just not a serious person worthy of discussion. Go over to www.Lewrockwell.com and talk about how great Ayn Rand is somewhere else.

 

Oh, also? Californians pay more in federal taxes than they get back:

 

It's the southern states who are receiving most federal monies in terms of what they initially paid in.

 

Even if you were arguing that it allows individuals to earn wealth instead of spending all their time protecting what they already have, I'd still disagree with you because they're not gaining from the government, they're paying for it.[/img]

 

Ok, paying for it, gaining from it, whatever way you want to word it, it's the same thing.

 

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.

[8 year-old's retort]Well I'm rubber and you're glue so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.[/8 year-old's retort]

 

That's not really what I said; pointing out an ironic aspect of the discussion isn't taking what you say and "bouncing" it. It's also interesting how you didn't address my point.

@game - interesting. I made it through the month with $13, but even then I'd do a lot differently if I was actually in that situation (such as not have a cell phone).

So you think if something is means-tested in any form that it's a welfare program? You need a better definition, because Medicare is means-tested, too.

From wiki's page on the differences between medicare and medicaid:

Unlike the Medicare entitlement program, Medicaid is a means-tested, needs-based social welfare or social protection program rather than a social insurance program. Eligibility is determined largely by income. The main criterion for Medicaid eligibility is limited income and financial resources, a criterion which plays no role in determining Medicare coverage. Medicaid covers a wider range of health care services than Medicare.

 

Oh, also? Californians pay more in federal taxes than they get back:

 

It's the southern states who are receiving most federal monies in terms of what they initially paid in.

That chart was formed with data from 2005, and the payments to states include when the federal government contracted with private businesses in the state. It also doesn't take into military spending, from the related discussion in the original thread your picture was in:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2690371/posts

This kind of thing is very misleading. It shows Virginia receiving more than its share of federal dollars but neglects to mention that Northern VA is the home of most of the federal government and SE VA is home to the largest Naval Base in the world along with a veritable host of other assorted and sundry military installations. Its not like the Feds are pumping in billions of tax dollars to repair 95 and 64 and their related infrastructures.

Quit posting irrelevant data, it would be the same as if I said California's per capita income is actually #6, based on this chart:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0109.html

 

 

Even if you were arguing that it allows individuals to earn wealth instead of spending all their time protecting what they already have, I'd still disagree with you because they're not gaining from the government, they're paying for it.

 

Ok, paying for it, gaining from it, whatever way you want to word it, it's the same thing.

Do you have any accounting sense at all?

 

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.

[8 year-old's retort]Well I'm rubber and you're glue so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.[/8 year-old's retort]

 

That's not really what I said; pointing out an ironic aspect of the discussion isn't taking what you say and "bouncing" it. It's also interesting how you didn't address my point.

I'm not going to address your point when all its made up of are straw-men arguments and ad hominem attacks.

Seriously, what is your fascination with the military in a thread about the definition of poverty? Are you the king of Ignoratio elenchi?

 

]My "fascination" is that you and the Heritage Foundation want to cut Medicaid while leaving the military budget -- a military budget that's higher than during the Cold War -- completely intact. You have your priorities out of whack. Although this discussion proves my initial point on why you want to change the definition of what it means to be poor ;)

 

This seems like a valid point, sees_all ^didn't see anything about this in your post. :|

Seriously, what is your fascination with the military in a thread about the definition of poverty? Are you the king of Ignoratio elenchi?

 

]My "fascination" is that you and the Heritage Foundation want to cut Medicaid while leaving the military budget -- a military budget that's higher than during the Cold War -- completely intact. You have your priorities out of whack. Although this discussion proves my initial point on why you want to change the definition of what it means to be poor ;)

 

This seems like a valid point, sees_all ^didn't see anything about this in your post. :|

If magekillr wants to discuss the amount of funding the US military receives, or continue to bash the right wing for their positions on the US military, it would be more appropriate for him to create a new thread or find a related one to post in instead of here.

I know I'm a bit late, but having cable TV does NOT mean you don't live in poverty. Let me direct your attention to this http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Economics-Radical-Rethinking-Poverty/dp/1586487981

 

Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.

 

I read this book and it was absolutely eye opening.

 

An extremely simplified version of it is: What you think the poor would do with extra money is utterly false. People without enough food who acquire extra money will NOT buy more food or even better food. They will buy less of worse food, and unnecessary things like TV and cellphones.

 

But I simply cannot explain it in one post. Look for a torrent if you don't want to buy, but I consider a must read for anyone even slightly interested in how to actually start addressing the problems of poverty and poorness.

An extremely simplified version of it is: What you think the poor would do with extra money is utterly false. People without enough food who acquire extra money will NOT buy more food or even better food. They will buy less of worse food, and unnecessary things like TV and cellphones.

 

Forgive me if I haven't followed the argument properly--I'm sure someone will correct me XD--but isn't that what's being argued? The people who are getting assistance are, in some cases, not using it properly or wisely. And the government doesn't have the means to control such programs. Meanwhile they are not dedicating the resources needed to make aid-based programs as a help to get self-sufficient, mainly because they can't. Considering most corporations/private sectors dictate such things while trying to do more with less domestic labor, it deprives people of the opportunity to get self-sufficient. Which leaves us in a never-ending cycle that can't really be improved without making things dramatically worse elsewhere.

 

IDKMYBFFJILL.

[grammarnazi] Shouldn't it be one in every seven Americans is poor, instead of one in every American are poor? [/grammarnazi]

[grammarnazi] Shouldn't it be one in every seven Americans is poor, instead of one in every American are poor? [/grammarnazi]

I am TIF's official grammar Nazi and I approve of this post.

 

@nomrombom: looks interesting, might buy it.

Seriously, what is your fascination with the military in a thread about the definition of poverty? Are you the king of Ignoratio elenchi?

 

]My "fascination" is that you and the Heritage Foundation want to cut Medicaid while leaving the military budget -- a military budget that's higher than during the Cold War -- completely intact. You have your priorities out of whack. Although this discussion proves my initial point on why you want to change the definition of what it means to be poor ;)

 

This seems like a valid point, sees_all ^didn't see anything about this in your post. :|

If magekillr wants to discuss the amount of funding the US military receives, or continue to bash the right wing for their positions on the US military, it would be more appropriate for him to create a new thread or find a related one to post in instead of here.

 

Don't you think you're being highly selective about the [cabbage] you get angry at ?

Don't you think you're being highly selective about the [cabbage] you get angry at ?

 

My opinion is that just because there are multiple injustices in the world doesn't mean we should only address the worst.

Don't you think you're being highly selective about the [cabbage] you get angry at ?

 

My opinion is that just because there are multiple injustices in the world doesn't mean we should only address the worst.

 

Yet you have to start somewhere, attempting to fix everything at once is a recipe for disaster. (ZING RUNESCAPE QUEST NAME)

Don't you think you're being highly selective about the [cabbage] you get angry at ?

 

My opinion is that just because there are multiple injustices in the world doesn't mean we should only address the worst.

 

Yet you have to start somewhere, attempting to fix everything at once is a recipe for disaster. (ZING RUNESCAPE QUEST NAME)

 

 

omg no roonskaep in mah off topic dis r nt place foar dat geddit outttttt

 

end annoying OT elitism.

 

On topic, that is discussed as well in the book. People try to "solve poverty". That can't be done. The real solution is actually to solve the small things - diarrhea for example, or deworming people.

[grammarnazi] Shouldn't it be one in every seven Americans is poor, instead of one in every American are poor? [/grammarnazi]

I am TIF's official grammar Nazi and I approve of this post.

The title of this thread has been used many times in various publications -

Huffington Post: Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor

NPR: Report: Nearly 1 In 7 Americans Were Poor In '09

Heritage Foundation: In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor.

 

Just consider it to be a quote :wink:

 

 

Don't you think you're being highly selective about the [cabbage] you get angry at ?

Not really, just highly selective about the discussions I start. There's lots of head scratchers and idiotic situations, but not everything makes for an interesting discussion (or things I want to discuss).

It's not fair to rant on about how much money is being 'wasted' on welfare, then ignore how much money is being wasted on two pointless wars that aren't going anywhere.

[grammarnazi] Shouldn't it be one in every seven Americans is poor, instead of one in every American are poor? [/grammarnazi]

I am TIF's official grammar Nazi and I approve of this post.

The title of this thread has been used many times in various publications -

Huffington Post: Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor

NPR: Report: Nearly 1 In 7 Americans Were Poor In '09

Heritage Foundation: In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor.

 

Just consider it to be a quote :wink:

 

 

 

Ahhhh makes me mad because the quote is wrong ;-;. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but it does lol.

[grammarnazi] Shouldn't it be one in every seven Americans is poor, instead of one in every American are poor? [/grammarnazi]

I am TIF's official grammar Nazi and I approve of this post.

The title of this thread has been used many times in various publications -

Huffington Post: Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor

NPR: Report: Nearly 1 In 7 Americans Were Poor In '09

Heritage Foundation: In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor.

 

Just consider it to be a quote :wink:

 

 

 

Ahhhh makes me mad because the quote is wrong ;-;. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but it does lol.

Actually it doesn't annoy me that much because it is pretty obscure. The phrase "Americans ARE poor" is correct in itself, it's just easy to forget that the 1 is who's being referred to as poor, not the seven.

If you're copying a quote verbatim, and there's an error in the quote, shouldn't there be a [sic] tag technically?

 

Sorry if we've digressed here.

If you're copying a quote verbatim, and there's an error in the quote, shouldn't there be a [sic] tag technically?

 

Sorry if we've digressed here.

 

I always wondered what that was for. And now I know. :D

If you're copying a quote verbatim, and there's an error in the quote, shouldn't there be a [sic] tag technically?

 

Sorry if we've digressed here.

That makes it look funny. :mrgreen:

 

Changed the title, just for you grammar Nazis.

Thanks, that did give me a little giggle when I logged on to see the OT board. :^_^:

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.

I lived in a shelter for a while and then relied on a food bank for food. That doesn't mean we didn't deserve any help; we ran away from home because of my abusive father. But we needed more help when we didn't have a home or income than when we had a home and a weak income. It's just a matter of calling a spade a spade, and acting accordingly. If you're not homeless or hungry, you're not entitled to anything targeting the homeless and the hungry, or at least they are more entitled than you.

 

Also, you two need to stop bickering like children. There are other people on this forum and you guys are [cabbage]ting it up.

Seriously, what is your fascination with the military in a thread about the definition of poverty? Are you the king of Ignoratio elenchi?

Probably because he sees your arguments that the welfare system is "so misguided" as quaint compared to the ineffectual spending of the military. To put it more another way:

The US budget is like a 1st grader playing Oregon Trail. Spend all the money on ammunition so you can shoot at stuff, then wonder why your wagon is falling apart and everyone is dying of dysentery.

And yeah that doesn't directly answer your questions, but why are you investing so much goddamn energy into this when there are other much more harmful problems in the US budget?

 

More on topic though, my thoughts on the subject are pretty much as follows:

 

 

How dare they have air conditioning, particularly when temperatures around the country now are killing people who are without it!

 

The Heritage Foundation then gives data on poor households who have such luxuries as a refrigerator, a stove, a ceiling fan, a coffee pot and so on. I have news for the silver-spoon trust funders who work at the HF: even the most wretched slum apartment generally has a refrigerator and a stove. Some might even offer a ceiling fan. The Heritage Foundation apparently won't be happy until we're all living under bridges, although then they'll say we don't have it bad as long as we have a blanket.

 

Anyway, the Heritage Foundation takes their list of 'amenities' and scores it against poor households. You see, a $10 coffee pot from Dollar General and a $20 television from Goodwill means that you aren't suffering enough for our overlords - you're actually very well off compared to the poor 100 years ago. You can't make this [cabbage] up! A coffee pot is actually considered some kind of luxury item to the HF and it's scored against the poor.

 

The entire argument for saying that the poor are livin' large is that in a time of terrible, terrible deficits maybe we're doing too much for them, because "the overwhelming majority of poor households do not experience any form of physical deprivation"...because they have a coffee pot!

 

I know someone who lives in a broken-down RV in Oklahoma. The plumbing is bad and it doesn't have running water. She has it parked in an RV park that offers cable and Internet for the modest rental fee, and according to the Heritage Foundation she's living a life of luxury, even though she's living in a 25 year old RV without running water.

Source.

 

 

And, with a spike of comedy: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/

 

Not the most, ahem, professional sources I'll admit but I don't really think an argument this absurd deserves one. Kicking all extraneous things like tv, internet, a cell phone, unnecessary food, etc might save you what, a few hundred dollars a month? Not even considering that you need a lot of those things in order to be deemed worthy of being hired, a few hundred dollars a month is not enough to lift anyone out of (Relative US) poverty.

 

EDIT: Here's an analysis of the report that focuses more on the technical failings and laughably slanted manner in which it was conducted.

 

Which government agency does the Heritage Foundation turn to for information on the state of the poor? The Department of Housing and Urban Development? The Department of Veterans Affairs? The Department of Health and Human Services? The Social Security Administration? The Department of Energy. The primary analysis in this report concerns the number of appliances and consumer electronic goods in the homes of the poor, as found in the Department of Energy Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). This is a bizarre measure of poverty.

 

The authors of the report discuss access to food, housing, and medical services in the second half of the paper, but the primary evidence in this report is in the first half with the discussion of the Household Amenity Scale; I focus my criticisms on this first half. The scale is defined thus,

 

Living conditions can be analyzed by creating a household amenity scale based on the 30 items listed in Chart 1. The RECS database reports which households have each specific amenity. For each affirmative response that a household has a particular amenity, we gave the household one point. All the affirmative responses of the household were then summed to produce an overall amenity score for the household.

 

Under this scale, having a coffee pot counts as much as having a big screen television. A ceiling fan and an air conditioner have equal weight. The points could have been weighted based on estimated cost of the amenities that a given family had; the measure used here makes it look like poor families (as defined by the Census) arent that much less wealthy than median families.

 

This scale is flawed for other reasons, as well. Possession of consumer electronic goods is a poor indicator of well-being. Prices on manufactured goods like these are continually falling; prices on necessities are not falling as rapidly and are sometimes rising.

 

If the authors of the study wanted to make an honest case that poor people buy appliances and electronics that poor people ought not be able to afford, they could have done better. They could have weighted the scale based on estimated cost of specific goodsthis is still a rough measure, but better than one in which an answering machine and a clothes washer carry equal weight. They could have accounted for families that would have owned certain amenities prior to having a crisis that led them to poverty. They could have made some distinction between items that are necessities, like refrigerators and stoves, and items that are not, like stereos and video game systems. They could have, and they did not, because making any of these improvements to their method would have undermined the myth they were telling about poor people taking advantage of the middle class while wasting their money on luxuries and entertainment.

 

A thoughtful study would have been primarily concerned with access the families had to basic necessities, food, shelter, and medicine. Instead, this report focuses on data from the Department of Energys RECS, because this data can be selected to make poverty look like its not all that bad.

 

In the second half of the report, other indicators of poverty are briefly discussed. When I read this,

 

It is widely supposed that the poor are unable to obtain medical care, but in reality, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to a doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable because the family could not afford the cost.

 

it makes me think that President Nixons Medicaid program is a success. Actually, I wish Medicaid would do a better job of reaching the remaining 13 percent. The authors make similar fallacious arguments about food and shelter. If the authors wanted to make an honest case indicating that certain social services are extended too freely, the authors would have needed to show how much worse off families would be if they did not have access to those services. Instead, they simply assert that the poor are secure and stable without mentioning the role that welfare plays in their welfare.

 

The first time that I ever heard the word, welfare, I was at camp talking with my friend, Ethan. We were nine. He told me that he saw a welfare mom buy an expensive stereo, and he thought this was outrageous. Nine year olds dont know who welfare moms are, Ethan was parroting something a grown-up told him about the event. The grown-up was probably indignant that someone he was supporting with his tax dollars was not using her money in a way that demonstrated need.

 

Appliances used to be conspicuous symbols of excess. The first family on the block to have a television had status. The story that Ethan was told and the story told in the Heritage report refer to this, as if it is outrageous for poor people to have objects that indicate that they arent of low enough class to deserve government assistance. Amenities are no longer such indicators of class as Derek Thompson, writing for The Atlantic, notes in his analysis of the Heritage report:

I think the answer goes back to why so many familiesnot just the very poor, but the firmly middle classfeel squeezed in these times. Productivity increases in electronics, food manufacturing, and textiles have made consumer electronics, food, and clothes extremely cheap. Watching TV, reading news, listing to music, wearing clothes, and eating meals has never been more affordable, because weve figured out ways to bring down their cost through automation, outsourcing, and new technology.

 

But in other important sectorsfor example, health care, education, residential constructionwe have reason to think productivity hasnt grown much at all. Sometimes, its even gone backward.

 

The Household Amenity Scale gives cherry picked findings from an unusual source for data on poverty, analyzed through a bizarre and biased metric. The discussion in the second half of the report is fallacious. The Heritage Foundation report is not simply bad social science. It is myth making, disguised as evidence, designed to spread the idea that the poor are actually well-off and taking advantage of the middle class. This myth is simple enough to be told by a nine-year-old.