Being poor in America

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
If being ?poor? means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America?s 37 million official ?poor? people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.



So, why is this fraud being allowed to continue? Easy, because government officials and certain elite want more and more control to be put in the hands of government and taken away from the voters. Why? Because to they the voters don't understand what the voters need. We are too dumb to understand that they know what we truly need.


Being poor in America isn't exactly what is professed to be.


In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year ? the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year ? the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year ? nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation?s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation?s remaining poverty could be reduced.



The above points are important. Why? Because the government through its programs (which we the voters are too dumb to understand, just sign and drive) are creating the very situation they claim to be fixing!

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The government definition of poor is not spelled out.

The article comes up with some very general slaps that while true, may not be fully accurate.

The thing about unwed mothers getting married may help; there are plenty of mothers that were wed and now are out there on their own.

They may also be working 2000 hr/yr.

Throw in rent, child care, medical costs, transportation on an income that may be min wage or even $10-12/hr and they are not qualified as anything but poor.

Their income is to much for gov housing (if available), but with no support, they end up with little disposable income that can be put aside for a rainy day.

Raising children and working makes it difficult to advance using education without some type of support. If there is no personal support group around (family, friends) to help take care of children when sick or going to school, the chance for advancement is minimal.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I like the way the article refers to "Official Poverty", but neglects to tell you what that is???

How do you define the term Poor?

How can you talk about poor, if you can not define what it means. How little money would you say is poor? Is that for one person, One person and a Child, or is there some chart I can look at?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Heh I have seen this before and laugh when people talk about poor in this country. Poor in this country is when you have to drive a 5 year old car and live in a rental or own a small house. In Africa poor means you havent had food for several days and are on the move from the local militias trying to exterminate you.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation?s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

This is a very big issue within our country nobody wants to address. They, being politicians, support these poor lifestyle decisions with programs and promises of help. The American family is being torn apart and has been for the past half century. The result is generations of people through learned behavior from their parents making equally poor life deicsions and seeing themselves tossed into poverty.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
I like the way the article refers to "Official Poverty", but neglects to tell you what that is???

How do you define the term Poor?

How can you talk about poor, if you can not define what it means. How little money would you say is poor? Is that for one person, One person and a Child, or is there some chart I can look at?

The govt has an income point that it deems below the poverty line. I believe it sits right at ~13,000 a year.

 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
Congress's defininition of classes and the governements is not the same. Most people in congress feel your rich if you make more than about 50K a year. I'm sure everyone living in LA and NYC who make 50K a year feel rich too.

When the government wants your money in taxes, they tell you that you are really in the class above where you think you are. "Oh, you make 15K a year? well that's middle class my man. Here's your tax bill, pay the nice lady on the way out."
 

steppinthrax

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2006
3,990
6
81
I think the most interesting thing about being poor in the US is it's better then being middle class.

In my state (Maryland) when you are low income you get the following benefits.

1. MEAP (Maryland Energy assitance program- subsidizes a large % of your electricity)
2. WIC (Women infants children - free food neccesities like milk, bread, most of it can't be eaten by the mother and infant alone so the family eats it)
3. MCHP (Maryland Children's health program - free medical insurance till 18)
4. Free tution (Based on FAFSA and state GAG -guaranteed access grants which resutls in rebate checks because they commonly over pay or the student dosen't take room/board)
5. EIC (earned income credit - imagine getting a 4K IRS check)
6. Daycare waivers - State sponsored Daycare for single mothers/working morthers.
7. Food Stamps (very low income)
8. Emergency money (a program that offers cash money given to the person in the event the person goes flat broke, used for food etc)

Most of my income goes to med insurance, food and tution for my Masters degree. As well as daycare for my daugter and my mortgage. Afterwards I'm poor. These people who can qualify for these subsidize live like kings. Enroll in college drop completey out and pick up the rebate check. Never accepts that promotion because if they do their income increases and they make less after paying for all those things. Misuse their WIC checks and sell them on the streets. Leave their furnace on all day knowing I'm paying for their electric bill.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The point is the article does refer to official poverty and does not define it. This means the person that wrote the article does not know what that is, or is too lazy to do the research.

For instance if I live in a lower income region, then Poor should be adjusted because it costs less to live. Cost of living has a definite affect on what poor is determined to be. This is why I do not like these kind of blanket statements. Poor is subjective. If you can afford a car and a color TV you may be poor or you may not be poor. A car is merely a way to get to a job. A TV could be considered a necessity, if you want to see what the weather is. Other people may consider Internet Access a necessity.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...y/histpov/hstpov1.html

Here is a US Census Website. Like I said Poverty for one person and 2 people and 4 people are at different levels.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
The point is the article does refer to official poverty and does not define it. This means the person that wrote the article does not know what that is, or is too lazy to do the research.

For instance if I live in a lower income region, then Poor should be adjusted because it costs less to live. Cost of living has a definite affect on what poor is determined to be. This is why I do not like these kind of blanket statements. Poor is subjective. If you can afford a car and a color TV you may be poor or you may not be poor. A car is merely a way to get to a job. A TV could be considered a necessity, if you want to see what the weather is. Other people may consider Internet Access a necessity.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...y/histpov/hstpov1.html

Here is a US Census Website. Like I said Poverty for one person and 2 people and 4 people are at different levels.

I cant disagree with your premise of regional poverty being different. However this is what we get with a one size fits all govt. Much like being rich varies from region to region. Plop somebody down in Fargo ND making 60K a year and they are living a pretty nice life. Plop somebody down in DC, San Francisco, or NYC at 60K a year and not so much.

 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Shivetya
If being ?poor? means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America?s 37 million official ?poor? people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.



So, why is this fraud being allowed to continue? Easy, because government officials and certain elite want more and more control to be put in the hands of government and taken away from the voters. Why? Because to they the voters don't understand what the voters need. We are too dumb to understand that they know what we truly need.


Being poor in America isn't exactly what is professed to be.


<In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year ? the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year ? the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year ? nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

<As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation?s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

<Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation?s remaining poverty could be reduced.



The above points are important. Why? Because the government through its programs (which we the voters are too dumb to understand, just sign and drive) are creating the very situation they claim to be fixing!

Sliding down the slippery slope from slant artist to complete crank.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: piasabird
The point is the article does refer to official poverty and does not define it. This means the person that wrote the article does not know what that is, or is too lazy to do the research.

He does define it by refer to the Census Bureau. Maybe the article was written for print media, in which case they aren't going to take up space by including the government tables. Maybe he did include but the editor removed it, or he was given a limit of a certain amount of words. If so, that's rather difficult and invariably the author must choose to omit some content (s)he would prefer to include.

For instance if I live in a lower income region, then Poor should be adjusted because it costs less to live. Cost of living has a definite affect on what poor is determined to be. This is why I do not like these kind of blanket statements. Poor is subjective. If you can afford a car and a color TV you may be poor or you may not be poor. A car is merely a way to get to a job. A TV could be considered a necessity, if you want to see what the weather is. Other people may consider Internet Access a necessity.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...y/histpov/hstpov1.html

Here is a US Census Website. Like I said Poverty for one person and 2 people and 4 people are at different levels.

I think his point is well made, even without inclusion of the table. The point is, those our government classifies as poor may not be considered as poor by many of us.

My question would be, "how many of those 37 million are illegals who came here to work and send as much money back home as possible"?

Fern
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
This thread reminds me of the Capitol One bankers mocking those that are below them.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
The thing that bothers me is when people judge the poor without ever having really been there.
I don't mean that you don't have money to pay your mortgage or can't make the payment on your suv.

I was on disability for a time and heres the way the governments wonderful benefit system played out for me.

Total income for the month from social security: 557.00
Rent in low income housing 165.00
food stamps: 26.00
Medicare insurance premium: 92.00
Electric bill: 98.00
Water bill: 24.00
Car insurance: 62.00
prescription drug cost with insurance : 24.00

total expenses: 465.00

That left me with 92.00 cash for the entire month.
Yeah, I can see now how the poor are living high on the government benefits.


 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
I cant disagree with your premise of regional poverty being different. However this is what we get with a one size fits all govt. Much like being rich varies from region to region. Plop somebody down in Fargo ND making 60K a year and they are living a pretty nice life. Plop somebody down in DC, San Francisco, or NYC at 60K a year and not so much.
Hear Hear!! :beer:
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
The "working poor" are really the people we need to be paying attention to. I think the welfare queens have be trimmed down as far as possible and the ones still on the roles obviously aren't going to do much if anything to improve their situation.

But the people who are working, albeit in what most of us would consider crap jobs are the ones we need to try and elevate. There is a sizable percent of our population who fit into this category for any number of reasons, some of which may be or have been beyond their control.

Ending the Drug War would be a huge step in the right direction. Getting locked up for something stupid when you're 18 years old will affect you for the rest of your life and limit your chances of moving out of poverty and being a productive citizen. Having a criminal record, even for something small like having some pot on you can depending on your skills can sentence you to a Mcjob for the rest of your life.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Looks like still some work for Republicans left to do, at least if National Review is to be believed.
BTW, I doubt 46% of poor own their house, as in have a title to it.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Looks like still some work for Republicans left to do, at least if National Review is to be believed.
BTW, I doubt 46% of poor own their house, as in have a title to it.

I'll guess that a big chunk of this are elderly/retired folks and people whose homes are not anywhere close to meeting minimum housing codes.

That, and a 'mobile' home.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Still no sign of the OP or any resident Republicans to acknowledge the working poor.

No surprise
/me points "Hey, look, there go the working poor!"

now what?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: senseamp
Looks like still some work for Republicans left to do, at least if National Review is to be believed.
BTW, I doubt 46% of poor own their house, as in have a title to it.

I'll guess that a big chunk of this are elderly/retired folks and people whose homes are not anywhere close to meeting minimum housing codes.

That, and a 'mobile' home.

I'd like to point what is likely a very important distintion - this info is not about "poor" people, it's about low income earners.

Poor != low income earners necessarily. Poor are those without assets and income. You can have a lot of assets and no or low income easily.

Note that capital gains are excluded from the income amounts. I.e., if you live off interest and capital gains, you may show up here as "poor". And of course, you're not.

We have an awful lot of small business owners in this country, a huge amount really. When you have sufficient capital to start a new business, it will likely be years before you show any profit. You'll show up here listed as poor because you are not yet generating sufficient profit (even if you own considerable assets).

Bottom line, because the definition of "poor" is erroneous portrayed, this data certainly overstates the number of poor people, and quite likely substanially. No wonder so many so-called "poor people" have their own homes, cars, and multiple color TV's with cable or satelite.

Fern
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Looks like still some work for Republicans left to do, at least if National Review is to be believed.
BTW, I doubt 46% of poor own their house, as in have a title to it.

Im willing to bet 46% of ANYONE owns their own home. As in have a title for it. At least.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh I have seen this before and laugh when people talk about poor in this country. Poor in this country is when you have to drive a 5 year old car and live in a rental or own a small house. In Africa poor means you havent had food for several days and are on the move from the local militias trying to exterminate you.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation?s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

This is a very big issue within our country nobody wants to address. They, being politicians, support these poor lifestyle decisions with programs and promises of help. The American family is being torn apart and has been for the past half century. The result is generations of people through learned behavior from their parents making equally poor life deicsions and seeing themselves tossed into poverty.

Now throw in race and you've got yourself official taboo. The statistics are ugly.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |