Being poor in America

[ProfJohn]

It is interesting how so many of the left want to ignore the main points of the article and instead debate what was not in the article.

It is VERY clear in the article that when he speaks of ?poor? he is speaking of the people below the poverty level.
This level is set by the government, not by the left or the right. The threshold does not vary by region, but is adjusted for inflation.

Maybe one of you can explain this whole ?working poor? bit. Seems to me that people in poverty are the ?working poor.? As for the ?how hard a poor person has to work to keep what they got? bit the article points out that the ?poor? work far less hours than those who make more income.

 

[Wreckem]

The concept of "poor" is all relative.

The US "poor" would be considered to be middle to upper-middle class in most of Europe, and even then they would have access to more things that their european counterparts.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The concept of "poor" is all relative.

The US "poor" would be considered to be middle to upper-middle class in most of Europe, and even then they would have access to more things that their european counterparts.

The avarage middle-class individual in the EU is actually richer than the average middle class individual in the US.

Middle class defined as middle 50 percentile of income distribution, adjusted for purchasing power parity and GINI index.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is interesting how so many of the left want to ignore the main points of the article and instead debate what was not in the article.

It is VERY clear in the article that when he speaks of ?poor? he is speaking of the people below the poverty level.
This level is set by the government, not by the left or the right. The threshold does not vary by region, but is adjusted for inflation.

Maybe one of you can explain this whole ?working poor? bit. Seems to me that people in poverty are the ?working poor.? As for the ?how hard a poor person has to work to keep what they got? bit the article points out that the ?poor? work far less hours than those who make more income.

Nobody addresses the article because it is ridiculous. Anybody with basic knowledge of college level Economics knows that what people own has nothing ado with poverty.

Having a VCR from the 80s doesn't change the fact that a family might or might not have enough disposable income now to afford basic necessities for a child.

And having one or more TVs only illuminates how little financial knowledge poor families have in the US. I want to see how many of those TVs bought in the last 5 years have been bought on credit and what is the median interest rates those people are paying for them.

Material objects do not define poverty. Poverty is defined by the capacity one has to access immaterial levels of welfare for one's family. Things like a safe and non degraded environment for children to grow up, decent access to education both inside and outside schools. And of course you must consider this in relation to the average of their environment, because is against this average that these people will compete.

There is extensive scientific literature on poverty, with accurate research and figures, readily available in every major campus' library. All written by people who have a little nice PhD after their name, something Mr. Rector painfully lacks. But of course is nicer to pull out a couple of stunt figures about DVD players.

Then the most comical stuff is that about marriage. I guess the writer thinks that those single mothers decided to be left with no financial help from the fathers of their children. You know: they could have simply married, but instead they stubbornly decided to be single mothers. Brilliant.

But what could you expect from Mr. Robert Rector, whose main achievement was (quote from wiki) playing a leading role in creating one of the first major federal abstinence education programs in America. Now, that really worked.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is interesting how so many of the left want to ignore the main points of the article and instead debate what was not in the article.

It is VERY clear in the article that when he speaks of ?poor? he is speaking of the people below the poverty level.
This level is set by the government, not by the left or the right. The threshold does not vary by region, but is adjusted for inflation.

Maybe one of you can explain this whole ?working poor? bit. Seems to me that people in poverty are the ?working poor.? As for the ?how hard a poor person has to work to keep what they got? bit the article points out that the ?poor? work far less hours than those who make more income.

Nobody addresses the article because it is ridiculous. Anybody with basic knowledge of college level Economics knows that what people own has nothing ado with poverty.

Having a VCR from the 80s doesn't change the fact that a family might or might not have enough disposable income now to afford basic necessities for a child.

And having one or more TVs only illuminates how little financial knowledge poor families have in the US. I want to see how many of those TVs bought in the last 5 years have been bought on credit and what is the median interest rates those people are paying for them.

Material objects do not define poverty. Poverty is defined by the capacity one has to access immaterial levels of welfare for one's family. Things like a safe and non degraded environment for children to grow up, decent access to education both inside and outside schools. And of course you must consider this in relation to the average of their environment, because is against this average that these people will compete.

There is extensive scientific literature on poverty, with accurate research and figures, readily available in every major campus' library. All written by people who have a little nice PhD after their name, something Mr. Rector painfully lacks. But of course is nicer to pull out a couple of stunt figures about DVD players.

Then the most comical stuff is that about marriage. I guess the writer thinks that those single mothers decided to be left with no financial help from the fathers of their children. You know: they could have simply married, but instead they stubbornly decided to be single mothers. Brilliant.

But what could you expect from Mr. Robert Rector, whose main achievement was (quote from wiki) playing a leading role in creating one of the first major federal abstinence education programs in America. Now, that really worked.

Are you serious? Your reply is nothing but BS. And I'll comment on one little piece for you

I guess the writer thinks that those single mothers decided to be left with no financial help from the fathers of their children.

No, but they DID decide to sleep with a man KNOWING he couldnt support a child. Not to mention the whole birth control issue. You know how many birth control methods are availble for women? 7. Thats right. Getting preggo "by accident" is nothing but delusional excuses. This is just one of the many reasons the poor in this country stay that way: lack of willingness to learn or to make themselves better by being lazy.

Of course there are exceptions. There always are. But generalities are generally true.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The concept of "poor" is all relative.

The US "poor" would be considered to be middle to upper-middle class in most of Europe, and even then they would have access to more things that their european counterparts.

Speaking of comparisons.

Many P&Ners including the OP like to say Americans are not poor simply because they have a car.

A lot of Europeans can get away without having a car because their areas are so close together and they have public transportation.

That doesn't exist in many parts of the U.S. except for the big cities.

Even if you are poor and happen to live in the country and don;t have a car you're in even bigger trouble.

So is the answer for America's poor to round them all up and ship them to the big cities?

 

[TheSlamma]

Well Dave.. I think you should give more to charity then and stop trying to raise my taxes to give them free handouts.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The concept of "poor" is all relative.

The US "poor" would be considered to be middle to upper-middle class in most of Europe, and even then they would have access to more things that their european counterparts.

Speaking of comparisons.

Many P&Ners including the OP like to say Americans are not poor simply because they have a car.

A lot of Europeans can get away without having a car because their areas are so close together and they have public transportation.

That doesn't exist in many parts of the U.S. except for the big cities.

Even if you are poor and happen to live in the country and don;t have a car you're in even bigger trouble.

So is the answer for America's poor to round them all up and ship them to the big cities?

Meth is a helluva drug, isn't it Dave?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Well Dave.. I think you should give more to charity then and stop trying to raise my taxes to give them free handouts.

When have I ever been in favor of free handouts?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is interesting how so many of the left want to ignore the main points of the article and instead debate what was not in the article.

It is VERY clear in the article that when he speaks of ?poor? he is speaking of the people below the poverty level.
This level is set by the government, not by the left or the right. The threshold does not vary by region, but is adjusted for inflation.

Maybe one of you can explain this whole ?working poor? bit. Seems to me that people in poverty are the ?working poor.? As for the ?how hard a poor person has to work to keep what they got? bit the article points out that the ?poor? work far less hours than those who make more income.

Nobody addresses the article because it is ridiculous. Anybody with basic knowledge of college level Economics knows that what people own has nothing ado with poverty.

Having a VCR from the 80s doesn't change the fact that a family might or might not have enough disposable income now to afford basic necessities for a child.

And having one or more TVs only illuminates how little financial knowledge poor families have in the US. I want to see how many of those TVs bought in the last 5 years have been bought on credit and what is the median interest rates those people are paying for them.

Material objects do not define poverty. Poverty is defined by the capacity one has to access immaterial levels of welfare for one's family. Things like a safe and non degraded environment for children to grow up, decent access to education both inside and outside schools. And of course you must consider this in relation to the average of their environment, because is against this average that these people will compete.

There is extensive scientific literature on poverty, with accurate research and figures, readily available in every major campus' library. All written by people who have a little nice PhD after their name, something Mr. Rector painfully lacks. But of course is nicer to pull out a couple of stunt figures about DVD players.

Then the most comical stuff is that about marriage. I guess the writer thinks that those single mothers decided to be left with no financial help from the fathers of their children. You know: they could have simply married, but instead they stubbornly decided to be single mothers. Brilliant.

But what could you expect from Mr. Robert Rector, whose main achievement was (quote from wiki) playing a leading role in creating one of the first major federal abstinence education programs in America. Now, that really worked.

Are you serious? Your reply is nothing but BS. And I'll comment on one little piece for you

I guess the writer thinks that those single mothers decided to be left with no financial help from the fathers of their children.

No, but they DID decide to sleep with a man KNOWING he couldnt support a child. Not to mention the whole birth control issue. You know how many birth control methods are availble for women? 7. Thats right. Getting preggo "by accident" is nothing but delusional excuses. This is just one of the many reasons the poor in this country stay that way: lack of willingness to learn or to make themselves better by being lazy.

Of course there are exceptions. There always are. But generalities are generally true.

You really have no clue. As I already said, there is an extensive literature on the topic, and you can find as much information as you want at your local library. From a scientific point of view none of the argument mr. Rector made in his article make any sense.

Poverty is one of the most studied phenomena, and the variables to assess its form and dimension are not "number of DVD players". ( )

As for your insightful comment on who should people sleep with: why do you assume every single mother is so as a result of failure in birth control? Don't you know anybody who had a child and then, maybe years after, was left by her partner and forced to take care of the child by herself?

The whole birth control issue is big. Figures in the US for teen pregnancy are third-world like. But it's kind of hard to argue about this when the writer of the article was part of the abstinence-only programs that originated this very situation.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The concept of "poor" is all relative.

The US "poor" would be considered to be middle to upper-middle class in most of Europe, and even then they would have access to more things that their european counterparts.

Speaking of comparisons.

Many P&Ners including the OP like to say Americans are not poor simply because they have a car.

A lot of Europeans can get away without having a car because their areas are so close together and they have public transportation.

That doesn't exist in many parts of the U.S. except for the big cities.

Even if you are poor and happen to live in the country and don;t have a car you're in even bigger trouble.

So is the answer for America's poor to round them all up and ship them to the big cities?

what the hell lol

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Poor? America doesn't have any poor! America doesn't have homeless people! America doesn't have people who can't afford health insurance! America doesn't have people who struggle to pay the rent or to own a reliable vehicle. America doesn't have people who can barely afford to live in high-crime areas.

Don't get duped by those shifty lying pinko commie-libs who claim that America has poor people! The economy is good and getting gooder!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Many P&Ners including the OP like to say Americans are not poor simply because they have a car.

Heh heh. Anyone can own a "car". You can buy a car for under $1000. Owning a car that is mechanically sound and reliable is a very different story.

 

[smack Down]

Color TV, I think the 1960's called they want their luxury back.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
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.

Looks pretty good to me. All your bills were paid with money left over and you didn't go into debt.

 

[Modelworks]

lol
92.00 for the month.
Add in gas, food, household items like soap, detergent and your broke by the first week of the month.
Leaves another 3 weeks to figure out how your going to eat.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
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.

Thus we have a situation where a government owns its people. We have abolished liberty in this country because the hand that feeds you is the one making the rules. As long as the people remain poor authoritarians remain in power, and we will vote for those who maintain and ensure this system.

No one is going to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[ahurtt]

It's all relative. The poorest person in America lives like a king compared to the average person in some parts of the world. And yet somehow those people get by.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
lol
92.00 for the month.
Add in gas, food, household items like soap, detergent and your broke by the first week of the month.
Leaves another 3 weeks to figure out how your going to eat.

So you want to be able to make money and live comfortably while doing nothing because you're on disability? It sucks to be on disability, but where were your savings? I think its ridiculous to think that you should expect to live perfectly comfortably while you aren't doing anything productive, disability or not.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's all relative. The poorest person in America lives like a king compared to the average person in some parts of the world. And yet somehow those people get by.

Of course youre right. Unfortunately many in here cant seem to apply perspective OR comment sense ignore this or just come up with excuses.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's all relative. The poorest person in America lives like a king compared to the average person in some parts of the world. And yet somehow those people get by.

I guess cost of living has absolutely nothing to do with anything then does it. I mean, someone in Africa can get by on 4 dollars a year, why can't someone over here do the same, oh wait, its because it costs more to live in America, how do I keep forgetting that?

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's all relative. The poorest person in America lives like a king compared to the average person in some parts of the world. And yet somehow those people get by.

Of course youre right. Unfortunately many in here cant seem to apply perspective OR comment sense ignore this or just come up with excuses.

Yeah, that or the argument is so specious it's not worth a reply. But what the heck, ahurtt's contention that "somehow these people get by" is simply not true. In the counties he's referring to, people don't get by. They die. In huge numbers. Is that our new standard? If you don't die, you're not poor because you're doing better than citizens of Zambia?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's all relative. The poorest person in America lives like a king compared to the average person in some parts of the world. And yet somehow those people get by.

Of course youre right. Unfortunately many in here cant seem to apply perspective OR comment sense ignore this or just come up with excuses.

Yeah, that or the argument is so specious it's not worth a reply. But what the heck, ahurtt's contention that "somehow these people get by" is simply not true. In the counties he's referring to, people don't get by. They die. In huge numbers. Is that our new standard? If you don't die, you're not poor because you're doing better than citizens of Zambia?

A little exagerated. How many 3rd world country's entry stamps are in YOUR passport? At last count I had 7. And the people are doing fine. When I travel I tend to stay away from the big city tourist shit, and travel to the provinces. One big difference between people in these countries and the US? You dont hear bitching about how the government should give them more. They dont talk about how theyre getting screwed. Theyre the most sincere, loving people you will ever meet. And they get by.

You might want to refresh yourself on the word "generalities".

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's all relative. The poorest person in America lives like a king compared to the average person in some parts of the world. And yet somehow those people get by.

Of course youre right. Unfortunately many in here cant seem to apply perspective OR comment sense ignore this or just come up with excuses.

Yeah, that or the argument is so specious it's not worth a reply. But what the heck, ahurtt's contention that "somehow these people get by" is simply not true. In the counties he's referring to, people don't get by. They die. In huge numbers. Is that our new standard? If you don't die, you're not poor because you're doing better than citizens of Zambia?

A little exagerated. How many 3rd world country's entry stamps are in YOUR passport? At last count I had 7. And the people are doing fine. When I travel I tend to stay away from the big city tourist shit, and travel to the provinces. One big difference between people in these countries and the US? You dont hear bitching about how the government should give them more. They dont talk about how theyre getting screwed. Theyre the most sincere, loving people you will ever meet. And they get by.

You might want to refresh yourself on the word "generalities".

How touching.

Like I said; they die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...ies_by_life_expectancy

bonus points for positing that people in "these" countries are the most sincere and loving, implying that people in this country bitch about the government not giving them more, and then suggesting that I brush up on generalities.

Haven't had the chance to travel the world yet (on my to-do list). But I have been into some of the poorest areas in the Eastern United States. Camden, Appalachia, and Detroit to name a few. And based on what I've seen in those areas, the popular, guilt-free characterization of poor in this country being "welfare queens" and living like kings off the Government is laughable.

 

[First]

Are those stats supposed to be convincing?