What is Poverty in America?

[DarrinS]

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/18/morning-bell-what-is-poverty-in-america/




As Congress struggles to find a way to cut spending as part of raising the $14 trillion debt ceiling, they should take a close look at the more than $1 trillion spent every year on welfare. You’ll be surprised to learn that many of the 30 million Americans defined as “poor” and in need of government assistance aren’t quite what you’d expect—rather than homeless and on the streets, the average poor American household has luxuries like air conditioning, cable TV, and X-box video game consoles.

In their new report, What Is Poverty?, The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield analyze what it really means to be poor in America. The reality they found is much different than the picture painted in movies and on TV:

According to the government’s own survey data, in 2005, the average household defined as poor by the government lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. The family had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars). For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR.

If there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove. Other household conveniences included a washer and dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. (Note: That’s average European, not poor European.) The average poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

By its own report, the family was not hungry. The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from children in the upper middle class and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age in the late 1950s and are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than American soldiers who fought in World War II. The major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight.

That’s a far cry from the images the news media conjure up on TV. But it’s the reality of those who are defined as poor in America.

To be sure, the average poor family does not represent every poor family, and there are some who are better off and some who are worse off. Though most of the poor are well-housed, at any given point during the recession in 2009, about one in 70 poor persons was homeless, and one in five experienced temporary food shortages. Those individuals have serious concerns. But the fact remains that U.S. government statistics on poverty misrepresent the reality.

That misrepresentation has international implications. Rector and Sheffield explain that U.S. government poverty statistics portray a misleading negative image around the world. Al Jazeera, Iran’s Teheran Times, Chinese and Russian media have latched on to U.S. poverty statistics to depict the United States as a failed, nightmarish society. And nothing could be further from the truth.

President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new “poverty” measure that deliberately severs all connection between “poverty” and actual deprivation. Rector and Sheffield say that the goal is to measure income “inequality,” not poverty—giving the President public relations ammunition for his “spread-the-wealth” agenda.

Rector and Sheffield write that when it comes to making policy, the broader reality of what poverty in America means should be taken into consideration: “Sound public policy cannot be based on faulty information or misunderstanding . . . In the long term, grossly exaggerating the extent and severity of material deprivation in the U.S. will benefit neither the poor, the economy, nor society as a whole.”

[Blake]

luxuries like air-conditioning

damn richers with their fancy window units.

[boutons_deux]

VRWC stink tank Heritage trying to screw the poor so Heritage's financiers can get more.

what definition poverty, of subsistence does Heritage want?

"rather than homeless and on the streets"? what else? how about less than $500 in the bank (if they have a bank account), how about shopping at wal-mart after midnight the morning the food assistance kicks in?

"the typical poor American had more living space than the average European"

just living space? but leaves out that all Europeans have guaranteed health care?

"The average poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed."

who paid for it? some of that $1T Heritage says needs cutting?

Why doesn't Heritage look at the what it typically takes to live month to month vs a household or person's monthly income? Some hard numbers rather than bullshit "the poor aren't really poor, fuck 'em all"

It would be great if efficient public transport allowed the poor to avoid the expense of car, but certainly Heritage is against socialist public transport.

[RandomGuy]

ah yes, the old "they aren't really *that* bad off" argument.

Yet another "conservative" meme that sounds plausible on its face, but, like so many others, falls apart when one digs round into the underlying assumptions.

Irony Alert:

The major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight.

Overweight = diabetes

The same crowd who uses "they eat well" to argue that the poor "aren't that bad off" turn around and argue that they don't need "governement health insurance".

Nor does it mention that the populations of people being compared in the example didn't have the ready availability of the much reviled food stamps programs.

Apparently the progressive efforts at making sure that children didn't go hungry paid off.

Thanks for helping point that out Darrin. :D

[ElNono]

As Congress struggles to find a way to cut spending as part of raising the $14 trillion debt ceiling, they should take a close look at the more than $1 trillion spent every year on welfare.

Sure. They should also take a good look at defense and a plethora of other programs that are the bulk of expenses.

Didn't this whole 'the poor own xxxxxx' was being discussed in the other thread?

[RandomGuy]

damn richers with their fancy window units.

I guess the definition of luxury is AC units in areas where it commonly gets above 100 degrees for months on end?

Seriously? That is what you are going with, Darrin?

[RandomGuy]

Sure. They should also take a good look at defense and a plethora of other programs that are the bulk of expenses.

Didn't this whole 'the poor own xxxxxx' being discussed in the other thread?

Yup.

Darrin just wants the debate to be in one with his choice of titles. A subtle, but very deliberate tactic.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh man. I'm not even going to bother.

[ElNono]

The real question is: Can they afford LED lights?

[MannyIsGod]

Yup.

Darrin just wants the debate to be in one with his choice of titles. A subtle, but very deliberate tactic.

Darrin's the master of the drive by posting style. He's basically the small child that will come up and kick you in the knee and then run off. He's never interested in substantial debate or a true exchange of ideas. He's mainly interested in annoying people and he does so pretty well.

At some point its just best not to engage him and encourage the behavior any further but I have to admit he's very good at extracting a response from his targets; including me.

[ElNono]

Oh, and I can't wait for the obligatory 'But the 1920 middle class didn't have all this!' :dramaquee

[MannyIsGod]

The real question is: Can they afford LED lights?

Will those welfare checks even fill the Superdome?

[coyotes_geek]

Yet another "conservative" meme that sounds plausible on its face, but, like so many others, falls apart when one digs round into the underlying assumptions.

So specific to this piece, what are those underlying assumptions that make this fall apart?

I agree that having air conditioning doesn't automatically disqualify you from being able to be poor. But something like 2/3 of humanity lives on less than $5 a day. The premise that the standard of living that still gets considered as poor in America far exceeds the rest of the world is a valid observation.

[George Gervin's Afro]

yet another failed thread by darrins...

fwiw

I stopped at heritage foundation

[cheguevara]

:lol you are not poor unless you live in subsaharan conditions

[MannyIsGod]

So specific to this piece, what are those underlying assumptions that make this fall apart?

I agree that having air conditioning doesn't automatically disqualify you from being able to be poor. But something like 2/3 of humanity lives on less than $5 a day. The premise that the standard of living that still gets considered as poor in America far exceeds the rest of the world is a valid observation.

Its not really that valid, to be quite honest. What if we were to consider our upper tax brackets based on the rest of the world as well? How valid would you believe that to be?

[DarrinS]

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. (Note: That’s average European, not poor European.) The average poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

[coyotes_geek]

Its not really that valid, to be quite honest.

How so?


What if we were to consider our upper tax brackets based on the rest of the world as well? How valid would you believe that to be?

Not sure I follow. Consider our upper tax brackets in what way? If you're wanting to say American rich is a better standard of living than rest of the world rich, the same way that American poor is better SOL than rest of the world poor, then I'd agree. That's an equally valid comparison to draw.

[Blake]

So specific to this piece, what are those underlying assumptions that make this fall apart?

I agree that having air conditioning doesn't automatically disqualify you from being able to be poor. But something like 2/3 of humanity lives on less than $5 a day. The premise that the standard of living that still gets considered as poor in America far exceeds the rest of the world is a valid observation.

so what should the minimum standard of living be before a person has a right to ask for help?

[MannyIsGod]

But its not valid because we don't live in other parts of the world. You can't just say you're better off than country X's poor and thats good enough because when you live in country A there are different socioeconomic factors to consider. My point above was that if we're going to base what is poor in this country off of other countries standards then if we do that for the rich we're going to place a lot more in the upper tax bracket and obviously thats not going to fly.

Poverty in this country is the main factor for people falling behind the curve in pretty much every factor. Health, education, etc etc. Even though that people in this country have more relative wealth than the poor in other countries, if you're poor in this country it doesn't mean you're necessarily better off. That's the real comparison that should be made. If you want to compare our poor to the poor of other nations then feel free to do so but do so on the merits of where they stand on quality of life and what direction that trend of the quality of life is going.

There's also the fact that for some reason the debate around helping the poor in this country is always centered upon that help being some kind of hand out when in fact the focus should be on how the help is actually more beneficial to society as a whole. Having people lag behind inevitably holds back the entire society a great deal but we prefer short sighted politics instead of pragmatic view points.

[CuckingFunt]

So specific to this piece, what are those underlying assumptions that make this fall apart?

I agree that having air conditioning doesn't automatically disqualify you from being able to be poor. But something like 2/3 of humanity lives on less than $5 a day. The premise that the standard of living that still gets considered as poor in America far exceeds the rest of the world is a valid observation.

The observation is fine. It's the conclusion being drawn that being poor in this country ain't so bad that is problematic.

[baseline bum]

DarrinS won't be happy until the standard of living matches Rwanda.

[boutons_deux]

The UCA inequality is already down there with some African and S. American countries.

Inequality is What Makes America Great.

Social mobility is also way down since the St Ronnie became Pres.

[ElNono]

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. (Note: That’s average European, not poor European.) The average poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Do the poor own these houses?

[George Gervin's Afro]

My wife has taught for 20 yrs and she tells me of children who come to school with the same clothes on for an entire week. This includes socks and underwear..she said the kids' clothes stink.. she also feels terrible ofr them as they are ostricized by their classmates.. she says it's hard sometimes to not get emotional when she encounters these kids..

but I guess if they A/C where they live they are not bad off....

[DarrinS]

DarrinS won't be happy until the standard of living matches Rwanda.

I'm making the exact opposite point.

Wealth across all socioeconomic classes has risen substantially in the US.

[DarrinS]

America's middle class is also better off than our European counterparts.

[Blake]

My wife has taught for 20 yrs and she tells me of children who come to school with the same clothes on for an entire week. This includes socks and underwear..she said the kids' clothes stink.. she also feels terrible ofr them as they are ostricized by their classmates.. she says it's hard sometimes to not get emotional when she encounters these kids..

but I guess if they A/C where they live they are not bad off....

if they are wearing Air Jordans then your wife has no need to feel bad.

[ElNono]

I'm making the exact opposite point.
Wealth across all socioeconomic classes has risen substantially in the US.

I'm not so sure that's accurate though. Cost of living in the US is also far more expensive than other countries.

Not to mention that using technology (something that constantly depreciates as time goes on) to gauge relative wealth is fairly close to a strawman, IMO.

[cheguevara]

America's middle class is also better off than our European counterparts.

not if you count paid vacation, paid maternal leave, child daycare support, healthcare, retirement plans,etc,etc,etc. No, America's working middle class is not better off. Quite the opposite actually.

[boutons_deux]

"America's middle class is also better off than our European counterparts."

really? I'd say it's very close, insignificant differences.

[cheguevara]

we don't even have to go to europe to see how bad it's here in america for middle class/poor class. Let's compare with Canada.

My wife's cousin is considered "poor" in Toronto. Amount of healthcare money spent in having her recent child = $0. Amount of money she is spending on daycare for the child = $1 per week. (goverment pays the $1999 rest) Time she got paid leave: 6 months. Amount of $ she is getting from the govmt to help with the child= $400/month

I'm not saying that is a good thing that the govmt takes care of you like this. But let's get out of this bubble of ignorance that makes us think USA middle class/poor class lives better than the rest of the world.

[RandomGuy]

The observation is fine. It's the conclusion being drawn that being poor in this country ain't so bad that is problematic.

Yup. You got it.

This would have been more accurate than my statement about flawed underlying assumptions.

It is more of a case of a half-truth being used to make a flawed conclusion.

The half-truth:
Being poor in the US is better than being poor elsewhere.

The other half of that truth that is specifically left out:
Being poor in the US still sucks

The half truth is used in the following way to imply a desired conservative policy aim:

Being poor in the US is better than being poor elsewhere, so therefore we don't need all these socialistic wealth transfer schemes.



I don't think that is an unfair charactorization of the argument being made here. If anyone does, please say so and why it is unfair.

What this argument also misses, is that being poor in the US sucks a LOT less because of the social safety net we have in this country.

Get rid of that, and I highly doubt being poor in the US will be "better than X" for very long.

If it were not for the sheer scale of human misery that getting rid of all welfare programs would entail, I would be happy to let conservatives have *their* social experiment, so we can see how shockingly immoral and inhumane that would be, and finally be able discard the shitty idea that we don't need to use government to provide some social safety net for those who really need it once and for all.

[boutons_deux]

"being poor in the US sucks a LOT less because of the social safety net we have in this country."

UCA's safety net is the crappiest of all industrial countries, from non-universal health care, to %age of salary as unemployment pay and how long it lasts, to quality, amount of public housing, to 40% of America not getting paid sick days and no holiday, to no paid maternity leave, to rampant wage theft on the low-end, to no benefits, to level of public pension payout, etc, etc.

Then don't forget the usual 2 weeks UCA holiday vs 5 weeks in Europe.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yup. You got it.

This would have been more accurate than my statement about flawed underlying assumptions.

It is more of a case of a half-truth being used to make a flawed conclusion.

The half-truth:
Being poor in the US is better than being poor elsewhere.

The other half of that truth that is specifically left out:
Being poor in the US still sucks

The half truth is used in the following way to imply a desired conservative policy aim:

Being poor in the US is better than being poor elsewhere, so therefore we don't need all these socialistic wealth transfer schemes.



I don't think that is an unfair charactorization of the argument being made here. If anyone does, please say so and why it is unfair.

What this argument also misses, is that being poor in the US sucks a LOT less because of the social safety net we have in this country.

Get rid of that, and I highly doubt being poor in the US will be "better than X" for very long.

If it were not for the sheer scale of human misery that getting rid of all welfare programs would entail, I would be happy to let conservatives have *their* social experiment, so we can see how shockingly immoral and inhumane that would be, and finally be able discard the shitty idea that we don't need to use government to provide some social safety net for those who really need it once and for all.

lol @ conservatives wanting to get rid of all welfare programs.
lol @ shockingly immoral. Really?
lol @ the implied conservative postion that we don't need the government to provide some social safety net.

Seriously, RG. That's about the worst string of outright straw-positions I've seen you make, period.

[RandomGuy]

lol @ conservatives wanting to get rid of all welfare programs.
lol @ shockingly immoral. Really?
lol @ the implied conservative postion that we don't need the government to provide some social safety net.

Seriously, RG. That's about the worst string of outright straw-positions I've seen you make, period.

As I said, I don't think it was at all a strawman, that is the sad part.

Is it, or is it not, a commonly held belief among conservatives that "welfare should be left to charities and the private sector"? Commonly held as in more than 50% would agree to the statement.

Should I start quote mining for conservatives saying just that? Do you doubt I would find a lot of them?

I do not think that private charities would be capable of doing what the government does. This would mean that getting rid of the social safety net provided by TANF and so forth would throw a lot of people on the streets and quite potentially into real starvation. Is this, or is this not shockingly immoral?

[DarrinS]

As I said, I don't think it was at all a strawman, that is the sad part.

Is it, or is it not, a commonly held belief among conservatives that "welfare should be left to charities and the private sector"? Commonly held as in more than 50% would agree to the statement.


It is not.


You might be interested in what type of people actually give most to charities.

[Winehole23]

Seriously, RG. That's about the worst string of outright straw-positions I've seen you make, period. Shotgun method. Spray em with bullshit and see what sticks.

(In fairness, it's hard to have a debate with glib posters who refuse to debate)

[Winehole23]

OP seems like more of a rhetorical thrust than a logical one to me. If our poor are rich in relative terms to others (by counting household appliances and cars for example), then it's not "really" poverty. Hence the headline.

[JoeChalupa]

I remember poverty back in my childhood days when my parents were migrant workers and we lived in small shacks with no bathroom and we had to crap in the outhouse and take showers outside.
That to me was poverty.

[RandomGuy]

It is not.


You might be interested in what type of people actually give most to charities.

Hmm.

I really try to avoid strawman attacks, and work towards honestly representing the views of those who I disagree with. This was a good faith effort on my part to do so.

If you say it is not a commonly held belief among conservatives that we "should end government welfare programs and leave it to charities", then the onus is on me to show that it is.

Bullshit has been called. Fair enough.

I do not think it is unreasonable to charactorize a lot of conservative arguments in that manner, and will try to find some fair comments from conservatives to support that.

[ElNono]

You might be interested in what type of people actually give most to charities.

Those that can afford to?

[TeyshaBlue]

As I said, I don't think it was at all a strawman, that is the sad part.

Is it, or is it not, a commonly held belief among conservatives that "welfare should be left to charities and the private sector"? Commonly held as in more than 50% would agree to the statement.

No, it's not.


Should I start quote mining for conservatives saying just that? Do you doubt I would find a lot of them?
Knock yourself out, kid. I don't doubt you could find quite a number of talking heads saying that. Doesn't mean a damned thing other than that's what the talking heads believe...if it's even really what they believe...showbidness and all that...


I do not think that private charities would be capable of doing what the government does. This would mean that getting rid of the social safety net provided by TANF and so forth would throw a lot of people on the streets and quite potentially into real starvation. Is this, or is this not shockingly immoral?

I don't think private charities could pull the load either. That's why it's not a conservative position, regardless of the straw you continue to heap on this.

[boutons_deux]

I remember poverty back in my childhood days when my parents were migrant workers and we lived in small shacks with no bathroom and we had to crap in the outhouse and take showers outside.
That to me was poverty.

sounds like the threshold where even conservatives might want to help, maybe slip y'all $100/month, but only with weekly drug testing. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Hmm.

I really try to avoid strawman attacks, and work towards honestly representing the views of those who I disagree with. This was a good faith effort on my part to do so.

If you say it is not a commonly held belief among conservatives that we "should end government welfare programs and leave it to charities", then the onus is on me to show that it is.

Bullshit has been called. Fair enough.

I do not think it is unreasonable to charactorize a lot of conservative arguments in that manner, and will try to find some fair comments from conservatives to support that.

Alot? Nice, round number that.:lmao
It is not the zero sum position you seem to think it is. Most conservatives, IMO, would like to see some welfare programs changed....sure. I'm one of 'em. There's about zero reason why the LoneStar Card should be used to buy Slurpees at the 7-11 for instance. But that's a far cry from abolishment, which you seem to assume is the conservative position.

Seriously, ditch the qualifiers and once you find quotes from talking heads, link them to actual conservatives in the populance...you know, like CG or myself, or any number of humans. I'm pretty sure you aren't gonna do that and if you decide to use a poll, you better look at it pretty hard before you do.:lol

[clambake]

I remember poverty back in my childhood days when my parents were migrant workers and we lived in small shacks with no bathroom and we had to crap in the outhouse and take showers outside.
That to me was poverty.

thats like camping. can't believe people pay money to do that.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ conservatives wanting to get rid of all welfare programs.
lol @ shockingly immoral. Really?
lol @ the implied conservative postion that we don't need the government to provide some social safety net.

Seriously, RG. That's about the worst string of outright straw-positions I've seen you make, period.

And don't think I missed the implication....conservatives = shockingly immoral. :lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

thats like camping. can't believe people pay money to do that.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Google search for:

government should get out of welfare and leave it to charity

About 9,520,000 results (0.22 seconds)

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending

Government welfare cannot provide the same flexibility and diversity as private charities. Private aid organizations have a better understanding that true charity starts with individuals making better life choices. Federal involvement in welfare has generated an expensive mess of paperwork and bureaucracy while doing little to solve the problem of long-term poverty.


For reasons to be discussed below, welfare should be abolished. A good beginning would be for the federal government to get out at once. ... By its nature, re- form leaves that principle intact. ... are the recipients themselves and that the people on welfare would do better under a system of private charity. ...
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197c.asp


I contend that the U.S. government should simply get out of the TEMPLE altogether, and leave welfare, charity, religious reformation of character, etc. to the various churches, and charitable and religious organizations

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/whats-wrong-with-faith-based-funding-a-general-chronology-of-baptist-persecution-on-american-soil/


Repealing the income tax will leave an extra trillion dollars a year in the hands of individual Americans-money now being poured down government rat holes. That trillion dollars will buy a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.
Can you envision the jobs that will be created? Can you imagine the increase in charity? Whatever the problem, the people most interested in solving it will have the means to do so.
Source: The Great Libertarian Offer, p. 75 Sep 9, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Harry_Browne_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm



It didn't take long to find a rather large number of websites pretty much explicitly advocating the complete abolishment of government welfare programs and any kind of poverty assistance, with the exact argument that such functions can and should be left to charity.

At least a few of them were honest and admitted that some people will simply fall through the cracks and be really really bad off, as in starving.

Does this, or does this not provide some reasonable basis for concluding that such beliefs are "commonly held" among conservatives?

[Spurminator]

Okay I'll remember this article and the line of logic therein next time someone tries to argue that $250K salary doesn't qualify as "rich."

[RandomGuy]

And don't think I missed the implication....conservatives = shockingly immoral. :lmao

I think the rather nasty undercurrent of social darwinism is rather plain.

"if they can't make good decisions they deserve to starve to death" is ethically sound?

That is a rather logical outgrowth of the moralistic judgement expressed by many here. "Cut them loose from a social safety net, and if they can't make it, tough, they need to not be poor and make bad decisions".

Just because you can't recognize that nasty thing under the rock, doesn't mean it isn't there when you lift it up to look.

[TeyshaBlue]

Google search for:

government should get out of welfare and leave it to charity

About 9,520,000 results (0.22 seconds)

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending



http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197c.asp



http://www.kingdombaptist.org/whats-wrong-with-faith-based-funding-a-general-chronology-of-baptist-persecution-on-american-soil/


Source: The Great Libertarian Offer, p. 75 Sep 9, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Harry_Browne_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm



It didn't take long to find a rather large number of websites pretty much explicitly advocating the complete abolishment of government welfare programs and any kind of poverty assistance, with the exact argument that such functions can and should be left to charity.

At least a few of them were honest and admitted that some people will simply fall through the cracks and be really really bad off, as in starving.

Does this, or does this not provide some reasonable basis for concluding that such beliefs are "commonly held" among conservatives?

No. You haven't measured one silly damned thing. Nor have you even attempted a linear chain of logic from these websites (honestly, RG. Are you new to google?:lol) to rank and file conservatives.

btw....I googled: Government should provide welfare and not leave it to charity.

Advanced search
About 9,400,000 results (0.19 seconds)

I wouldn't even begin to assign those 9,400,000 hits to anybody, or group because, it's fucking Google.:rollin

[RandomGuy]

I'm making the exact opposite point.

Wealth across all socioeconomic classes has risen substantially in the US.

Since when?

I guess if your baseline is 1900, then sure.

If you want to make that case for the last few decades, good luck, because the nations "wealth" has most definitely become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the rather nasty undercurrent of social darwinism is rather plain.

"if they can't make good decisions they deserve to starve to death" is ethically sound?

That is a rather logical outgrowth of the moralistic judgement expressed by many here. "Cut them loose from a social safety net, and if they can't make it, tough, they need to not be poor and make bad decisions".

Just because you can't recognize that nasty thing under the rock, doesn't mean it isn't there when you lift it up to look.

Finding the nutbar that actually believes that, then ascribing that moralistic judgement to a group of people you can't even identify, is ludicrous and doesn't even sit at the same table as logic. Jesus! Just stop.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay I'll remember this article and the line of logic therein next time someone tries to argue that $250K salary doesn't qualify as "rich."
$250 k doesn't buy that much more after taxes...

The more you make, the more you want.

Nicer car, nicer clothes, nicer house...

Still the same problems.

[clambake]

i think poverty can be determined on whether or not you have OnStar.

[TeyshaBlue]

$250 k doesn't buy that much more after taxes...

The more you make, the more you want.

Nicer car, nicer clothes, nicer house...

Still the same problems.

Bullshit. Stop equating happiness to nicer cars and shit like that and the problems dissappear.

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit. Stop equating happiness to nicer cars and shit like that and the problems dissappear.
I didn't.

Do you know how general "same problems" is?

Money does not buy happiness.

[RandomGuy]

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks that TANF is evidence that all responsibility for anti-poverty programs should be handed to the states. He notes that California, which offers more generous benefits than most other states, has seen its TANF rolls increase by almost 25 percent since the recent recession started. Michigan and Rhode Island, which have seen a respective 2 percent increase and 10 percent decrease in their welfare rolls, offer less generous TANF benefits.

For DeHaven, block grants really aren’t the issue. “The federal government,” he argues, “should get out of welfare entirely and let states and charities address their particular issues within their own states — without federal funds.”

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/27/news/nation/states-take-aim-at-cutting-back-welfare-including-use-of-federal-block-grants/

Not quite all government, but still a pretty explicit echo.

[RandomGuy]

The idea that government-sponsored welfare programs to assist the needy are compatible with, and justified by, Christian philosophy is probably the most widespread erroneous belief that permeates American society, and is hastening the destruction of freedom in the United States. This tragic flaw in the thinking of both well-educated and uneducated Christians has already brought misery to millions, and if this thinking persists in this country, it will result in economic chaos followed by political totalitarianism.


http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=712

[TeyshaBlue]

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks that TANF is evidence that all responsibility for anti-poverty programs should be handed to the states. He notes that California, which offers more generous benefits than most other states, has seen its TANF rolls increase by almost 25 percent since the recent recession started. Michigan and Rhode Island, which have seen a respective 2 percent increase and 10 percent decrease in their welfare rolls, offer less generous TANF benefits.

For DeHaven, block grants really aren’t the issue. “The federal government,” he argues, “should get out of welfare entirely and let states and charities address their particular issues within their own states — without federal funds.”

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/27/news/nation/states-take-aim-at-cutting-back-welfare-including-use-of-federal-block-grants/

Not quite all government, but still a pretty explicit echo.

And still meaningless outside of that's what DeHaven believes.

[RandomGuy]

In her speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008, (video, transcript), Bachmann makes the connection between fiscal conservatism, small government, a strong family and private charity.


As Republicans, we recognize that service is an innately personal characteristic. It is best achieved by individuals and community groups, faith-based organizations and charities.

------------------------------

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/michele-bachmann-explains-why-we-need-to-cut-corporate-tax-rates/

[TeyshaBlue]

The idea that government-sponsored welfare programs to assist the needy are compatible with, and justified by, Christian philosophy is probably the most widespread erroneous belief that permeates American society, and is hastening the destruction of freedom in the United States. This tragic flaw in the thinking of both well-educated and uneducated Christians has already brought misery to millions, and if this thinking persists in this country, it will result in economic chaos followed by political totalitarianism.


http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=712

Are you going to start a bouton's VWRC-type thread? It's easier than critically examining your position. Works for boutonski.

[RandomGuy]

9 million hits to choose from, I could do this all day.

Does this or does this not qualify as a "commonly held belief"?

[TeyshaBlue]

In her speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008, (video, transcript), Bachmann makes the connection between fiscal conservatism, small government, a strong family and private charity.



------------------------------

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/michele-bachmann-explains-why-we-need-to-cut-corporate-tax-rates/

Yup....Bachmann equals all conservatives, because, well, because you say so.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

9 million hits to choose from, I could do this all day.

Does this or does this not qualify as a "commonly held belief"?

Nope. It's 9 million hits from google. Strange how I probably don't agree with one single fucking one of them. But as a conservative, I'm now a Bachmann sycophant.

[TeyshaBlue]

Seriously, RG. You are going to offer up, as proof, Google hits?:depressed

[Wild Cobra]

I have a problem with any search engine when it gives everything you don't want, just because it gets read alot.

[RandomGuy]

Are you going to start a bouton's VWRC-type thread? It's easier than critically examining your position. Works for boutonski.

I have only prove it is a "commonly held belief".

I readily accede that proving 50% or more would be difficult, but this idea seems pretty common to me.

Yes or no, does this sentiment echoed endlessly on thousands of websites by more people than I would care to count become a "commonly held belief"?

I think I have gotten a pretty good sample.

Are you going to move the goalposts now?

[coyotes_geek]

so what should the minimum standard of living be before a person has a right to ask for help?

Depends on your definition of the concept of poverty. Is poverty a measure of someone's inability to adequately meet the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter? Or is poverty a measure of someone's standard of living relative to their peers? My personal belief is that assistance needs to be based on the former instead of the latter.

Admittedly, that's a vague standard as to what constitutes "adequate". It's also not one that can be specifically measured by determining what amentities one possesses. As Nono pointed out in the other thread, things like refridgerators, stoves, ovens and AC's have been pretty standard in apartments and homes for quite some time now. So you really can't use those items as your measuring stick. I'd even toss VCR's and DVD's in there considering how you can go to Goodwill and pick up a used one on the cheap.

That being said, there are things like cable/satellite, internet & cell phones that come with monthly bills. If you're in the camp that thinks assistance should be based just on meeting basic needs, it's fair game to question those, IMO. It's also fair game not to be bothered by those if you're in the camp that thinks assistance should be based on raising that person's standard of living closer towards everyone elses.


But its not valid because we don't live in other parts of the world. You can't just say you're better off than country X's poor and thats good enough because when you live in country A there are different socioeconomic factors to consider. My point above was that if we're going to base what is poor in this country off of other countries standards then if we do that for the rich we're going to place a lot more in the upper tax bracket and obviously thats not going to fly.

Poverty in this country is the main factor for people falling behind the curve in pretty much every factor. Health, education, etc etc. Even though that people in this country have more relative wealth than the poor in other countries, if you're poor in this country it doesn't mean you're necessarily better off. That's the real comparison that should be made. If you want to compare our poor to the poor of other nations then feel free to do so but do so on the merits of where they stand on quality of life and what direction that trend of the quality of life is going.

There's also the fact that for some reason the debate around helping the poor in this country is always centered upon that help being some kind of hand out when in fact the focus should be on how the help is actually more beneficial to society as a whole. Having people lag behind inevitably holds back the entire society a great deal but we prefer short sighted politics instead of pragmatic view points.

Conceptually, I don't have a problem with that, but it goes back to my point in response to blake. Are we going to define lagging behind as the inability to meet the basic food, clothing & shelter needs or is lagging behind not having as many creature comforts beyond those basic needs as other people?


The observation is fine. It's the conclusion being drawn that being poor in this country ain't so bad that is problematic.

Generally agree.

[RandomGuy]

Yup....Bachmann equals all conservatives, because, well, because you say so.:lmao

I never said "all" conservatives believe that.

If you want to bitch about strawman attacks, perhaps you should take better care not to use them yourself.

[ElNono]

Google search for:

I used Google to search for conservative bias

About 5,640,000 results (0.28 seconds)

[TeyshaBlue]

Google search for:

I used Google to search for conservative bias

About 5,640,000 results (0.28 seconds)

:lol:lol

[ElNono]

Finding the nutbar that actually believes that

He might be lurking in these very forums! :lol

[ElNono]

$250 k doesn't buy that much more after taxes...

Really? With a straight face?

[ElNono]

Seriously, RG. You are going to offer up, as proof, Google hits?:depressed

Truth be told, more than one self-proclaimed conservative poster here has advocated RG's point. I wouldn't use that to color the entire conservative spectrum though.

[TeyshaBlue]

I never said "all" conservatives believe that.

If you want to bitch about strawman attacks, perhaps you should take better care not to use them yourself.

You are ascerting that conservatives take the position that welfare should be abolished and picked up by private charities. I think you used the qualifier "alot". Of course, you have done nothing to quantify what "alot" means, and it therefore sits as an open qualifier. It's up to you to actually apply some critical thought to an otherwise, untenable position.

lol @ bitching. I'm pointing them out. Don't be so defensive.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Truth be told, more than one self-proclaimed conservative poster here has advocated RG's point. I wouldn't use that to color the entire conservative spectrum though.

I agree. That's why I don't let boutons color the entire progressive spectrum.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, RG. You are going to offer up, as proof, Google hits?:depressed

The number of hits as an absolute means jack shit. Again with the strawman.

The fact that I got quite a few directly applicable quotes from the first few pages though, does imply that if I sifted through the large number of hits with any larger chunk of time, I could probably fill this thread with such quotes.

n'est-ce pas?

[Winehole23]

Really? With a straight face?Fancy clothes, fancy car fancy house. People who make a lot also spend a lot. Poor rich folks.

[TeyshaBlue]

The number of hits as an absolute means jack shit. Again with the strawman.

The fact that I got quite a few directly applicable quotes from the first few pages though, does imply that if I sifted through the large number of hits with any larger chunk of time, I could probably fill this thread with such quotes.

n'est-ce pas?

You most certainly could. It would mean, of course, jack shit.

[ElNono]

Depends on your definition of the concept of poverty. Is poverty a measure of someone's inability to adequately meet the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter? Or is poverty a measure of someone's standard of living relative to their peers? My personal belief is that assistance needs to be based on the former instead of the latter.

I agree. I would add access to education and baseline healthcare to the basic needs. You want them to eventually be productive members of society.

[ElNono]

Fancy clothes, fancy car fancy house. People who make a lot also spend a lot. Poor rich folks.

Right. I'm sure it buys a lot more than those making 60K after taxes...

[Winehole23]

The fact that I got quite a few directly applicable quotesDirectly applicable to what?

[TeyshaBlue]

Directly applicable to what?

That's the kicker.:lol

[RandomGuy]

You most certainly could. It would mean, of course, jack shit.

How many would I have to post before it becomes apparent to anybody who is being fair that it is a commonly held belief?

100?

1,000?

10,000?

100,000?

What level of proof would you require to prove it is a commonly held belief?

[RandomGuy]

Directly applicable to what?


Is it, or is it not, a commonly held belief among conservatives that "welfare should be left to charities and the private sector"?

(edit) with the implication that the government should simply stop doing any social safety net programs at all.

I think this is a much more mainstream sentiment than Tenysha does.

Anyhoo, gotta get going.

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me get this straight. Earlier you said that google hits, as an absolute, mean jack shit. Yet here you are, asking, how many hits would equate to an, um, absolute.

[ElNono]

How many would I have to post before it becomes apparent to anybody who is being fair that it is a commonly held belief?

I don't think it's a matter of volume. I think you're going about this the wrong way. Finding quotes from a few conservative icon figures (Reagan and the like) will probably give you an easier time making the point you're trying to make.

(I have no idea if any of those figures are on the record on that)

[TeyshaBlue]

@ RG. I must be misunderstanding you. Fuck, I hope so.


Dammit EN!:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

(edit) with the implication that the government should simply stop doing any social safety net programs at all.

I think this is a much more mainstream sentiment than Tenysha does.

Anyhoo, gotta get going.

I'm Teysha. Tenysha is my poodle.:lol

[RandomGuy]

Let me get this straight. Earlier you said that google hits, as an absolute, mean jack shit. Yet here you are, asking, how many hits would equate to an, um, absolute.

How many people would I have to quote from before it becomes "common"?

It was a bit rhetorical. argh.. really have to get going.

[TeyshaBlue]

How many people would I have to quote from before it becomes "common"?

It was a bit rhetorical. argh.. really have to get going.

That's a good question. That you don't have an answer is telling.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

5,998 posts to go :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Nope. It's 9 million hits from google. Strange how I probably don't agree with one single fucking one of them. But as a conservative, I'm now a Bachmann sycophant.

TB, you do this all the time because you so adamantly refer to yourself as conservative but the fact of the matter is you're not a conservative at all in the way that word is used today. I understand your frustration with having that word pulled from you but the fact of the matter is that YOU are not the run of the mill conservative today and the run of the mill conservative isn't very conservative at all.

[DarrinS]

Sad to watch someone fall into the Alan Grayson rabbit hole.

[ElNono]

Not familiar with Alan Grayson's rabbit hole, tbh.

[JoeChalupa]

Having grownup in poverty is probably why I find it hard to understand why many think you have to make big bucks to be happy or to raise a family. Also why I'm so frugal, a cheap ass some may say. I want my kids to be happy with their lives and it isn't all about the money. Yes, I want them to have the things they want but I also don't want them to concentrate on the material things in life. While we may have been poor in my early days..we were happy.

[Winehole23]

Not familiar with Alan Grayson's rabbit hole, tbh.Shrillness and bloviation. You can take Darrin's word for it, he's an expert.

[DarrinS]

Having grownup in poverty is probably why I find it hard to understand why many think you have to make big bucks to be happy or to raise a family. Also why I'm so frugal, a cheap ass some may say. I want my kids to be happy with their lives and it isn't all about the money. Yes, I want them to have the things they want but I also don't want them to concentrate on the material things in life. While we may have been poor in my early days..we were happy.


Nothing wrong with being frugal. I'm quite a cheap ass myself. I agree that you don't have to have a lot of material possessions to be happy. We live in a consumer culture that makes you feel somehow inferior if you don't own the latest Apple gizmo. My family was quite poor when I was young, but my mom worked hard enough to get us a slightly better life in SA. Moving to the west side of SA in the late 70's was a step up for us. It's good to teach your kids that material things aren't what matters. It's equally important to teach them to work hard and try their best at school, sports, work, etc.

[DarrinS]

Shrillness and bloviation. You can take Darrin's word for it, he's an expert.

lol, gfy wh

[MannyIsGod]

Having grownup in poverty is probably why I find it hard to understand why many think you have to make big bucks to be happy or to raise a family. Also why I'm so frugal, a cheap ass some may say. I want my kids to be happy with their lives and it isn't all about the money. Yes, I want them to have the things they want but I also don't want them to concentrate on the material things in life. While we may have been poor in my early days..we were happy.

Who said anything about making the big bucks in order to be happy? That being said, statistics don't lie. The amount of money your parents make is a huge indicator on how your life will turn out to be because of how hard it is to climb the social ladder. No one is saying it can't happen but its harder. Much harder.

[Winehole23]

lol, gfy whgfy!:toast

[JoeChalupa]

Nothing wrong with being frugal. I'm quite a cheap ass myself. I agree that you don't have to have a lot of material possessions to be happy. We live in a consumer culture that makes you feel somehow inferior if you don't own the latest Apple gizmo. My family was quite poor when I was young, but my mom worked hard enough to get us a slightly better life in SA. Moving to the west side of SA in the late 70's was a step up for us. It's good to teach your kids that material things aren't what matters. It's equally important to teach them to work hard and try their best at school, sports, work, etc.

:tu Both my parents never got past the 6th grade but worked their way up and then my dad got hired at General Motors and we moved up to middle class but my parents never spoiled us and it wasn't until later that I realized my dad was making very good money which by today's standards some wouldn't think it was that good. But I do realize that the cost of living has risen and will continue to rise and that education is the key.

[JoeChalupa]

Who said anything about making the big bucks in order to be happy? That being said, statistics don't lie. The amount of money your parents make is a huge indicator on how your life will turn out to be because of how hard it is to climb the social ladder. No one is saying it can't happen but its harder. Much harder.

I said it because I know many who feel that way. The money your parents make is an indicator but it shouldn't be an excuse or used as a crutch. I know there are circumstances when it does make it almost impossible to break out of poverty. I used to be that the next generation had it better but that is not the case because it isn't as easy as it was in my dad's time when you could walk out of HS and straight into a high paying job at GM. By the time I graduated GM was no longer hiring. But I also believe a parents support and guidance is a much bigger factor than how much money they make.

[SA210]

luxuries like air conditioning



:lmao:lmao No need to even bother after reading that crap.


Always have been amazed how some people actually have no idea whatsoever in any sense of the word, haven't got the slightest clue at all what it's truly like to be poor. That's why we see garbage spewed like this trash article. Not even funny actually, it's just plain sad.

[SA210]

My wife has taught for 20 yrs and she tells me of children who come to school with the same clothes on for an entire week. This includes socks and underwear..she said the kids' clothes stink.. she also feels terrible ofr them as they are ostricized by their classmates.. she says it's hard sometimes to not get emotional when she encounters these kids..

but I guess if they A/C where they live they are not bad off....

I've seen this type of thing personally too many times. :depressed

[CosmicCowboy]

But why does not having a lot of clothes mean they have to be dirty and smelly? Would you accept there might be a little parental negligence here as well?

[LnGrrrR]

:lol At this article. These two sentences placed together should say everything you need to know about it.



In the kitchen, the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove. Other household conveniences included a washer and dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.



A fridge, oven and stove are "conveniences"?

[SA210]

But why does not having a lot of clothes mean they have to be dirty and smelly? Would you accept there might be a little parental negligence here as well?

I might submit that they can't afford the best detergents and have to ration it, or not be able to afford it at all. Water will only go so far with the same clothes. I know of families who couldn't pay the water bill and got there water shut off. Local charities exhaust monies frequently to help families in need to pay utilities. I know low income parents who work and still have problems paying for the necessities.

[LnGrrrR]

$250 k doesn't buy that much more after taxes...

The more you make, the more you want.

Nicer car, nicer clothes, nicer house...

Still the same problems.

Whose fault is that? :lol I guess the person making 250K should be smarter with their money, as people making 25K are often told to do.

[JoeChalupa]

But why does not having a lot of clothes mean they have to be dirty and smelly? Would you accept there might be a little parental negligence here as well?

You just simply may not understand if you've never lived in poverty. Not your fault at all.

[SA210]

You just simply may not understand if you've never lived in poverty. Not your fault at all.

[JoeChalupa]

I might submit that they can't afford the best detergents and have to ration it, or not be able to afford it at all. Water will only go so far with the same clothes. I know of families who couldn't pay the water bill and got there water shut off. Local charities exhaust monies frequently to help families in need to pay utilities. I know low income parents who work and still have problems paying for the necessities.

:tu

[MannyIsGod]

You just simply may not understand if you've never lived in poverty. Not your fault at all.

Pretty true. My mother has told me stories about how their whole family split a couple of tortillas and ONE tomatoe because that was all they had. I dont' think I've ever seen it that bad, but I've had it bad at times.

[elbamba]

I might submit that they can't afford the best detergents and have to ration it, or not be able to afford it at all. Water will only go so far with the same clothes. I know of families who couldn't pay the water bill and got there water shut off. Local charities exhaust monies frequently to help families in need to pay utilities. I know low income parents who work and still have problems paying for the necessities.

Certainly we can agree that there are some that fall into this category. But there are certainly others who choose to spend what little money they have on unnecessary expenses. When I was living in the inner city I don't know how many times I saw people using food stamps to buy their food and then spending cash on smokes, beer, lottery tickets.

I am not for ceasing all welfare, but I am for trimming it. I think it is too easy to get a handout in this country and I think that there is insufficient oversight over such programs. It is reasonable for the government to provide basic necessities such as education, food and medical care. Money to buy video games, tvs, cars and cell phones, not so much.

[Winehole23]

TYpYs9GBXwY

[mingus]

conservative and liberal tactics are both helpful. going on experience alone, a lot of people need serious government aid, no question about that. but then there's a substantial proportion of those getting government aid who abuse the system.

comparing the US standards of living to that of any other country is retarded though. America has always stood for something greater/set higher standards for itself in terms of living standards.

[mingus]

The idea that government-sponsored welfare programs to assist the needy are compatible with, and justified by, Christian philosophy is probably the most widespread erroneous belief that permeates American society, and is hastening the destruction of freedom in the United States. This tragic flaw in the thinking of both well-educated and uneducated Christians has already brought misery to millions, and if this thinking persists in this country, it will result in economic chaos followed by political totalitarianism.


http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=712

can you sum up what exactly "Christian philosophy" means?

[boutons_deux]

"America has always stood for something greater/set higher standards for itself in terms of living standards."

America's natural resources delivered most of America's wealth, not its "standards".

[MannyIsGod]

But its not valid because we don't live in other parts of the world. You can't just say you're better off than country X's poor and thats good enough because when you live in country A there are different socioeconomic factors to consider. My point above was that if we're going to base what is poor in this country off of other countries standards then if we do that for the rich we're going to place a lot more in the upper tax bracket and obviously thats not going to fly.

Poverty in this country is the main factor for people falling behind the curve in pretty much every factor. Health, education, etc etc. Even though that people in this country have more relative wealth than the poor in other countries, if you're poor in this country it doesn't mean you're necessarily better off. That's the real comparison that should be made. If you want to compare our poor to the poor of other nations then feel free to do so but do so on the merits of where they stand on quality of life and what direction that trend of the quality of life is going.

There's also the fact that for some reason the debate around helping the poor in this country is always centered upon that help being some kind of hand out when in fact the focus should be on how the help is actually more beneficial to society as a whole. Having people lag behind inevitably holds back the entire society a great deal but we prefer short sighted politics instead of pragmatic view points.


Certainly we can agree that there are some that fall into this category. But there are certainly others who choose to spend what little money they have on unnecessary expenses. When I was living in the inner city I don't know how many times I saw people using food stamps to buy their food and then spending cash on smokes, beer, lottery tickets.

I am not for ceasing all welfare, but I am for trimming it. I think it is too easy to get a handout in this country and I think that there is insufficient oversight over such programs. It is reasonable for the government to provide basic necessities such as education, food and medical care. Money to buy video games, tvs, cars and cell phones, not so much.

[MannyIsGod]

"America has always stood for something greater/set higher standards for itself in terms of living standards."

America's natural resources delivered most of America's wealth, not its "standards".

Bingo. But let the national myth live on. We're here because we're AMERICAN damn it - not because of vast natural resources coupled with two oceans to separate us from most of the effects of war.

[hater]

the economic bubble and the future imminent US economic troubles will finally bring the US middle class to reality.

For years thanks to credit cards and massive loans, the middle class has been living like kings pretty much. But I'm afraid that golden age which started aroudn the 1950s is about to be over.

"what? I can't afford my boat anymore? my 75 inch plasma in my private movie theatre?? my 3 SUVs that run at 7MPG??"

no, you are middle class. time to wake up to reality. Your great "credit" is not worth shit anymore. You'll be lucky to keep your house.

[DMX7]

$250 k doesn't buy that much more after taxes...

The more you make, the more you want.

Nicer car, nicer clothes, nicer house...

Still the same problems.

I see, so in a very real way people who make 250K are as poor as people actually living in poverty.

[RandomGuy]

That's a good question. That you don't have an answer is telling.

Telling you something you might not want to hear? :p:

This brand of crazy is far more widespread than you seem to want to admit.

There are a good number of moderate conservatives for whom abolishing all government social safety nets in favor of letting "charity" do it is not something they would advocate, but you can't escape the fact that there is a large chunk of the right in this country that believes precisely that.

I will take El Nono's suggestion and find some more mainstream quotes, since dozens of websites with conservative slants saying exactly that doesn't seem to suffice to meet your bar of "commonly held". To be fair, one might use the example of 9-11 twoofers to imply that is also a "commonly held" belief among progressives, so I would not be all that ready to accept it either.

As I said before, I am trying to be fair, and your point here is a valid criticism of the method.

[RandomGuy]

Certainly we can agree that there are some that fall into this category. But there are certainly others who choose to spend what little money they have on unnecessary expenses. When I was living in the inner city I don't know how many times I saw people using food stamps to buy their food and then spending cash on smokes, beer, lottery tickets.

I am not for ceasing all welfare, but I am for trimming it. I think it is too easy to get a handout in this country and I think that there is insufficient oversight over such programs. It is reasonable for the government to provide basic necessities such as education, food and medical care. Money to buy video games, tvs, cars and cell phones, not so much.

"certainly there are some, but certainly there are others"

Ok, that gets us nowhere.

Unless you can say with any certainty where the border lies, cutting drastically will most certainly harm those for whom we are most definitely trying to help.

Unless, of course, you believe that harming the people who can least help themselves is worth the price for getting those who are abusing the system off the rolls?

Once again it boils down to cost and benefit.

If the cost is cutting 100 people and thier kids off to prevent 1 person from abusing the system, that is not a cost I am willing to bear.

[RandomGuy]

In her speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008, (video, transcript), Bachmann makes the connection between fiscal conservatism, small government, a strong family and private charity.

------------------------------

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/michele-bachmann-explains-why-we-need-to-cut-corporate-tax-rates/


Yup....Bachmann equals all conservatives, because, well, because you say so.:lmao

Once again, it is not my contention that such a belief is held by "all conservatives", merely that it is a commonly held viewpoint.

If Bachmann starts winning primaries with speeches like this, your ability to claim that it isn't a widely held viewpoint that the federal government should get out of the "charity" business with welfare/social safety programs and leave it to private charity exclusively, will sound thinner and thinner.

She won't get the nod, but her popularity belies the assertion that such views are only held by some vanishingly small minority, if that is what you are attempting to claim.

[DarrinS]

In the 1950's, a typical middle-class home was about 1000 sq. ft. and had a window unit AC and fans. Most owned a single car and had a single TV.

[hater]

In the 1950's, a typical middle-class home was about 1000 sq. ft. and had a window unit AC and fans. Most owned a single car and had a single TV.

and in the rest of the world in the 1950s a typical middle-class had not home, rental mostly, no AC, tv? car? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

In the 1950's, a typical middle-class home was about 1000 sq. ft. and had a window unit AC and fans. Most owned a single car and had a single TV.

I hear the poor are all living in sprawling 4000 sq ft homes and driving 2 huge gas guzzling SUVs (LOL Darrin's dream), with CENTRAL FUCKING AIR and a TV in each head rest and sun visor of their 2 SUVs.

[MannyIsGod]

Apparently in the 50s there were also many more in poverty (as a percentage - with population increases the actual number is higher) in this country. My, what a glorious time that was.

The poverty rate in 2009 (14.3 percent) was the highest poverty rate since 1994 but was 8.1 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/highlights.html

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin's basic argument is that as qualify of life has gone up across the board the poor should have been left behind. Because their standards went up with everyone else's they can't be poor anymore - even if they really still are poor.

Fucking AC means you're not poor.

[vy65]

But its not valid because we don't live in other parts of the world. You can't just say you're better off than country X's poor and thats good enough because when you live in country A there are different socioeconomic factors to consider. My point above was that if we're going to base what is poor in this country off of other countries standards then if we do that for the rich we're going to place a lot more in the upper tax bracket and obviously thats not going to fly.

But you have to agree, from a material standpoint, being in poverty in America is preferable to being in poverty in a place like Syria, right? That might not be saying much, and you'd be right to argue that poverty in America shouldn't resemble poverty in a third world country. But that doesn't take away from the fact that being poor here is way better than most the rest of the world.


Poverty in this country is the main factor for people falling behind the curve in pretty much every factor. Health, education, etc etc. Even though that people in this country have more relative wealth than the poor in other countries, if you're poor in this country it doesn't mean you're necessarily better off. That's the real comparison that should be made. If you want to compare our poor to the poor of other nations then feel free to do so but do so on the merits of where they stand on quality of life and what direction that trend of the quality of life is going.

Quality of life compared to other U.S. citizens? Sure, they lag behind. But quality of life compared to the poor in other countries? There's no comparison.

I don't think anyone here is saying that because poor Americans are better off than their counterparts elsewhere, they should shut the fuck up and deal.


There's also the fact that for some reason the debate around helping the poor in this country is always centered upon that help being some kind of hand out when in fact the focus should be on how the help is actually more beneficial to society as a whole. Having people lag behind inevitably holds back the entire society a great deal but we prefer short sighted politics instead of pragmatic view points.

Why should the debate be phrased like that? I can see why someone who presupposes the need for government welfare would like to craft the debate in those terms. And there is probably some truth to what you're saying. I'd be curious to see how you reconcile the idea that we need to account for everyone in the herd with the meritocratic values that this country supposedly stands for?

[CosmicCowboy]

"America has always stood for something greater/set higher standards for itself in terms of living standards."

America's natural resources delivered most of America's wealth, not its "standards".

That's total bullshit. Africa is loaded with natural resources and is still a shithole.

[DarrinS]

Darrin's basic argument is that as qualify of life has gone up across the board the poor should have been left behind. Because their standards went up with everyone else's they can't be poor anymore - even if they really still are poor.

Fucking AC means you're not poor.


Actually, I've been arguing that we've raised the bar on what it means to be middle class and poor. People who currently have the standard of living of the 1950's middle class are now considered poor. I always hear people say they can't make it on a single income. Well, yeah, if you want a 300K house and two 40K vehicles, you probably DO need two incomes.

[ChumpDumper]

So the poor are actually rich and people making 250k a year are not.

Good talk.

[Blake]

Actually, I've been arguing that we've raised the bar on what it means to be middle class and poor. People who currently have the standard of living of the 1950's middle class are now cosidered poor. I always hear people say they can't make it on a single income. Well, yeah, if you want a 300K house and two 40K vehicles, you probably DO need two incomes.

there is no way that two school teachers on school teacher salary can afford a $300k house and two $40k cars.

not even sure that two school teachers can afford a $150k house and two $20k cars.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, I've been arguing that we've raised the bar on what it means to be middle class and poor. People who currently have the standard of living of the 1950's middle class are now considered poor. I always hear people say they can't make it on a single income. Well, yeah, if you want a 300K house and two 40K vehicles, you probably DO need two incomes.Did most middle class families in the 50s have two incomes?

[DarrinS]

there is no way that two school teachers on school teacher salary can afford a $300k house and two $40k cars.

not even sure that two school teachers can afford a $150k house and two $20k cars.

Depends on how long they've been teaching. Second statement is total bs.

[DarrinS]

Did most middle class families in the 50s have two incomes?

Probably not. My family only has my income, but that's why our house is smaller and less expensive than average and why we only buy used cars.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Gross%20Domestic%20Produc t%20GDP%20History&year=1940_2010&sname=US&units=k&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&col=c&spending0=1166.9_1366.1_1618.2_1883.1_2035.2_2012. 4_1792.2_1776.1_1854.2_1844.7_2006_2161.1_2243.9_2 347.2_2332.4_2500.3_2549.7_2601.1_2577.6_2762.5_28 30.9_2896.9_3072.4_3206.7_3392.3_3610.1_3845.3_394 2.5_4133.4_4261.8_4269.9_4413.3_4647.7_4917_4889.9 _4879.5_5141.3_5377.7_5677.6_5855_5839_5987.2_5870 .9_6136.2_6577.1_6849.3_7086.5_7313.3_7613.9_7885. 9_8033.9_8015.1_8287.1_8523.4_8870.7_9093.7_9433.9 _9854.3_10283.5_10779.8_11226_11347.2_11553_11840. 7_12263.8_12638.4_12976.2_13254.1_13228.8_12880.6_ 13038.7

the real GDP since 1950 is up nearly 700%, but does Darrin expect "poor" people to today to live like poor people of 1950.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Gross%20Domestic%20Produc t%20GDP%20History&year=1940_2010&sname=US&units=k&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&col=c&spending0=1166.9_1366.1_1618.2_1883.1_2035.2_2012. 4_1792.2_1776.1_1854.2_1844.7_2006_2161.1_2243.9_2 347.2_2332.4_2500.3_2549.7_2601.1_2577.6_2762.5_28 30.9_2896.9_3072.4_3206.7_3392.3_3610.1_3845.3_394 2.5_4133.4_4261.8_4269.9_4413.3_4647.7_4917_4889.9 _4879.5_5141.3_5377.7_5677.6_5855_5839_5987.2_5870 .9_6136.2_6577.1_6849.3_7086.5_7313.3_7613.9_7885. 9_8033.9_8015.1_8287.1_8523.4_8870.7_9093.7_9433.9 _9854.3_10283.5_10779.8_11226_11347.2_11553_11840. 7_12263.8_12638.4_12976.2_13254.1_13228.8_12880.6_ 13038.7

the real GDP since 1950 is up nearly 700%, but does Darrin expect "poor" people to today to live like poor people of 1950.

WTF? Your GDP chart is totally meaningless in the context of this conversation. It's apples to kumquats.

[RandomGuy]

That's total bullshit. Africa is loaded with natural resources and is still a shithole.

So an entire continent's worth of untapped natural resources had absolutely nothing to do with wealth creation in the United States because the continent of Africa is currently run by dysfunctional governments.

Gotcha.

[RandomGuy]

there is no way that two school teachers on school teacher salary can afford a $300k house and two $40k cars.

not even sure that two school teachers can afford a $150k house and two $20k cars.

Depends on if you have kids or not. Little boogers are expensive.

Two teachers could conceivedly have a 300k house, if they saved for a good while and lived beneath their means long enough.

I know our situation would be light-years ahead of where it is now if we didn't have kids.

[CosmicCowboy]

So an entire continent's worth of untapped natural resources had absolutely nothing to do with wealth creation in the United States because the continent of Africa is currently run by dysfunctional governments.

Gotcha.

Well is it the resources or the people/government? Make up your fucking mind.

[boutons_deux]

Definition poverty is related to the general wealth and welfare, not to some static measure of the 1955.

[CosmicCowboy]

Definition poverty is related to the general wealth and welfare, not to some static measure of the 1955.

Clearly it's relative. I would be "poor" if I lived in the Hamptons.

[RandomGuy]

That's total bullshit. Africa is loaded with natural resources and is still a shithole.

I'm just ribbing you. I do readily acknowledge that things like rule of law and so forth, have a good deal to do with it. Boutons hyperbolic arcs tend to miss things like that.

[ChumpDumper]

Well is it the resources or the people/government? Make up your fucking mind.You left out the insulation from wars and other factors like colonization.

[Blake]

Second statement is total bs.

Depends on the definition of afford based on savings, retirement and family planning.

[CosmicCowboy]

You left out the insulation from wars and other factors like colonization.

Don't confuse the issue. Ask Boutons, it's just the resources.

[DarrinS]

Clearly it's relative. I would be "poor" if I lived in the Hamptons.


For some reason, it's more difficult to be middle class in the very blue areas of the country. You'd have to be a doctor or lawyer to have a decent home in San Fran.

[ChumpDumper]

For some reason, it's more difficult to be middle class in the very blue areas of the country. You'd have to be a doctor or lawyer to have a decent home in San Fran.You can be a washroom attendant and own a mansion in Simi Valley.

[RandomGuy]

NPV of dollars spent on raising a child to age 18 in Texas:

Total cost: $152,790
Expenses from now until age 18

http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator

Close to 8300 per year.

That is a lot for someone earning just $20k

Even if one adjusts or omits a lot of that $8,300, it adds up.

Just thought I might throw in that relevant bit, because the cost in the 1950s was MUCH cheaper, simply because moms didn't have to work.

Given the prevalance of single parents, that complicates any such comparisons.

I would though wonder about the availability and modern cost of a comfortable 1,000 square foot house or apartment in most cities these days to people with low incomes.

Just because such homes were available to the middle class in the 1950s does not mean they are available today.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't confuse the issue. Ask Boutons, it's just the resources.You were talking to RandomGuy.

[vy65]

NPV of dollars spent on raising a child to age 18 in Texas:

Total cost: $152,790
Expenses from now until age 18

http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator

Close to 8300 per year.

That is a lot for someone earning just $20k

Even if one adjusts or omits a lot of that $8,300, it adds up.

Just thought I might throw in that relevant bit, because the cost in the 1950s was MUCH cheaper, simply because moms didn't have to work.

Given the prevalance of single parents, that complicates any such comparisons.

I would though wonder about the availability and modern cost of a comfortable 1,000 square foot house or apartment in most cities these days to people with low incomes.

Just because such homes were available to the middle class in the 1950s does not mean they are available today.

If it's so expensive, don't have kids?

[RandomGuy]

For some reason, it's more difficult to be middle class in the very blue areas of the country. You'd have to be a doctor or lawyer to have a decent home in San Fran.

Blue areas tend to have higher educational attainment. Educational attainment tends to equate to income.

Not a hard reason to ferret out.

[DarrinS]

Blue areas tend to have higher educational attainment. Educational attainment tends to equate to income.

Not a hard reason to ferret out.


Just because you graduate from Stanford doesn't mean you can afford to live in Palo Alto.

[cheguevara]

:lol everyone arguing different things. this thread is a fuckup

[RandomGuy]

:lol everyone arguing different things. this thread is a fuckup

I think you are wrong.



















HA!

[RandomGuy]

Just because you graduate from Stanford doesn't mean you can afford to live in Palo Alto.

Correct.

Hence the qualifiers "tend" as in "more likely" as in "not guaranteed". :toast

[Winehole23]

:lol everyone arguing different things. this thread is a fuckupDiscussions here can be very fluid and the basic terms/themes are seldom very well-established. It can be a little sketchy sometimes. Getting people to actually talk about the things they appear to be talking about, can be challenging.

[vy65]

Discussions here can be very fluid and the basic terms/themes are seldom very well-established. It can be a little sketchy sometimes. Getting people to actually talk about the things they appear to be talking about, can be challenging.

What the fucking hell is your avatar?

[ElNono]

For some reason, it's more difficult to be middle class in the very blue areas of the country. You'd have to be a doctor or lawyer to have a decent home in San Fran.

More difficult as in more expensive? When it comes to major metropolis, I don't think that necessarily has to do with blue or red.

[ElNono]

What the fucking hell is your avatar?

http://io9.com/5022374/davros-should-have-stayed-dead-in-1975

[ElNono]

In the 1950's laundry detergent was much better too...

[Winehole23]

El Nono beat me to it.

[Winehole23]

http://io9.com/5022374/davros-should-have-stayed-dead-in-1975Neat link. :toast

[Winehole23]

To hold in my hand a capsule that contained such power,
To know that life and death on such a scale was
My choice. To know a tiny pressure on
My thumb, enough to break the glass, would end
Everything. Yes! I would do it! That power
Would set me up among the gods! And through
The Daleks, I shall have that power!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjn47Y-MTg

[LnGrrrR]

In the 1950's, a typical middle-class home was about 1000 sq. ft. and had a window unit AC and fans. Most owned a single car and had a single TV.

Also, most women worked in the home, and blacks were separate but equal.

Why should our definition of "poor" be static when so many our definitions (for instance, a woman's place) aren't?

[LnGrrrR]

What the fucking hell is your avatar?

I revoke all nerd status from you.

[RandomGuy]

[@ Winehole]What the fucking hell is your avatar?

Davros, the Dalek leader/creator from Dr. Who.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Davros



Yeah, I'm that kinda nerd.

(edit)

It is a lego creation, probably from the same website that Agloco's website was drawn from for his recent thread, were I to guess

(edit #2)
Ok, WAS a lego thing, till he changed it again. sheesh, worse than a woman with shoos.

[Winehole23]

I revoke all nerd status from you.:lol

[Winehole23]

I watched "Genesis of the Daleks" for the very first time last night. Am I in?

[RandomGuy]

In the 1950's laundry detergent was much better too...

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg

While we are getting all misty-eyed about the 1950's, and how cheap everything was.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg


This [1969] was not the first time that the river had caught on fire. Fires occurred on the Cuyahoga River in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952. The 1952 fire caused over 1.5 million dollars in damage.

(edit)
The phrase "the river is on fire" is always at the back of my mind when people start talking about "government overreach" and limiting jobs through environmental legislation, but that is a whole different thread.

[vy65]

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg

While we are getting all misty-eyed about the 1950's, and how cheap everything was.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg



(edit)
The phrase "the river is on fire" is always at the back of my mind when people start talking about "government overreach" and limiting jobs through environmental legislation, but that is a whole different thread.

http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/tvgasm_don_draper_23805_img_0107.png

[vy65]

Not quite the 50's but close enough

[vy65]

And whatever, fuck Ohio.

[JoeChalupa]

And whatever, fuck Ohio.

I grew up in small town Ohio. Loved it.

[Winehole23]

And whatever, fuck Ohio.So sour.

[Winehole23]

(you can spit out the cat turd anytime you like)

[SA210]

I saw a family buy Tide w/Bleach at HEB. Rich people.

[Blake]

I saw a family buy Tide w/Bleach at HEB. Rich people.

Not sure, but I think a two income family can afford the HEB brand.

[SnakeBoy]

The observation is fine. It's the conclusion being drawn that being poor in this country ain't so bad that is problematic.

That wasn't the conclusion of the op. Try reading the last 3 paragraphs.

[Winehole23]

Tendentious. Makes sense, but the blockers are leaning too hard into the running back.

[Winehole23]

President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new “poverty” measure that deliberately severs all connection between “poverty” and actual deprivation.Has such a policy actually been proposed? Are we talking about the new health care law now?

[RandomGuy]

That wasn't the conclusion of the op. Try reading the last 3 paragraphs.


That misrepresentation has international implications. Rector and Sheffield explain that U.S. government poverty statistics portray a misleading negative image around the world. Al Jazeera, Iran’s Teheran Times, Chinese and Russian media have latched on to U.S. poverty statistics to depict the United States as a failed, nightmarish society. And nothing could be further from the truth.

President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new “poverty” measure that deliberately severs all connection between “poverty” and actual deprivation. Rector and Sheffield say that the goal is to measure income “inequality,” not poverty—giving the President public relations ammunition for his “spread-the-wealth” agenda.

Rector and Sheffield write that when it comes to making policy, the broader reality of what poverty in America means should be taken into consideration: “Sound public policy cannot be based on faulty information or misunderstanding . . . In the long term, grossly exaggerating the extent and severity of material deprivation in the U.S. will benefit neither the poor, the economy, nor society as a whole.”----------------------------------------------------

"Our enemies already use our poverty statistics in propaganda, when being poor in the US is better than in many other places"
[while ignoring that it still sucks]

"Obama plans to exaggerate policy, in my opinion, by adding a new measure of poverty, that I won't go into detail about."
[start wondering why the author doesn't elaborate]

"This planned new measure of poverty won't benefit anybody, in my opinion."
[in addtion to not saying what this measure is, there is nothing except this guys word in the OP to support WHY]

Critical thinking fail.

[RandomGuy]

So essentially we have the argument:

"This new unspecified measure of poverty in this country will let Al Qaeda say mean things about us."

:cry

??

[Wild Cobra]

I guess I'm guilty of not being generous. From what I would consider poverty, I calculated the following quick, general, annual numbers:

1 person $11,400
2 people $14,460
3 people $17,520
4 people $20,580

I probable missed some basic necessities, and this should be higher. But not dramatically so in my view.

[Winehole23]

How'd you arrive at the numbers?

[Wild Cobra]

How'd you arrive at the numbers?

Being a miser at rent, utilities, food, and clothing. No cable, car, insurance, etc. A person can eat on $150 for a month. I added $110 monthly per additional person considering combining meals. I figured $50 monthly per person on clothing. Rent and utilities $750 for a single person, with an additional $95 per person. Maybe I should have included some transportation expenses.

Ideas?

[clambake]

tell us what they'll eat for $150 a month.

[Winehole23]

Maybe I should have included some transportation expenses.

Ideas?Just keep talking. I can't wait to see what comes next.

[SnakeBoy]

So essentially we have the argument:

"This new unspecified measure of poverty in this country will let Al Qaeda say mean things about us."

:cry

??

Pretty much. Hey don't ask me to explain it, I was just pointing out the conclusion of the op wasn't "it ain't so bad to be poor in America".

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe I should have included some transportation expenses.No need. They all have Air Jordans.

[SnakeBoy]

Ideas?

Try reworking the numbers factoring in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Instead of just "life".

[Winehole23]

Hey don't ask me to explain it, I was just pointing out the conclusion of the op wasn't "it ain't so bad to be poor in America".What do you think Darrin meant?

[Wild Cobra]

tell us what they'll eat for $150 a month.
Are you saying they can't cook from scratch?

Stop buying prepared and ready to cook food. Just that simple.

I make sandwiches for work. I buy the good bread that costs me 3 loaves for $550 at the outlet store, but $3.59 or so a loaf at a supermarket. The meats and cheeses I buy add up. In the end, using supermarket prices, I get good healthy sandwiches for about $1.53 each that include meat, cheese, two spreads, and lettuce. I could skimp on the quality and pay far less, but I buy top notch.

Breakfast is cheap. A few eggs, pancakes, some type of meat.

What about Raymen?

No soda, but milk, juice, and water.

It doesn't cost much to eat if you stick to the basics.

[boutons_deux]

What about Raymen?

Everybody Loves Raymen

[Wild Cobra]

Try reworking the numbers factoring in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Instead of just "life".
That means getting a better job. Some people are comfortable with their government assistance. That tells me it's too good.

[SnakeBoy]

I buy the good bread that costs me 3 loaves for $550 at the outlet store,

Damn, that must be really good bread.

[SnakeBoy]

What do you think Darrin meant?

He didn't make a comment in the op. He could have meant poor people have it really good or he could have meant calling poor americans poor helps them muslim terrorists...it's hard to say.

[MannyIsGod]

You think you can eat for a month on 150? Holy shit!

[SnakeBoy]

That means getting a better job. Some people are comfortable with their government assistance. That tells me it's too good.

So I guess that means you're not going to rework the numbers using American standards.

[ChumpDumper]

If they have to run to the bread outlet store all the time, they will need to eat more and buy Air Jordans more often.

[SnakeBoy]

If they have to run to the bread outlet store all the time, they will need to eat more and buy Air Jordans more often.

Then they should live closer to the outlet store. -Wild Cobra

[MannyIsGod]

You probably could if you ate nothing but Ramen. 6 for a dollar after all. Then again, you'd probably also have hypertension within a year so you'd better factor that in. Quality of life might also suffer just a tad if you're eating nothing but Ramen.

[Blake]

if they have Air Jordans and XBoxes, they should only be issued a Lone Star Ramen Card.

[clambake]

i want to see some prices and pictures of the products that would feed one person for $150 a month.

[SnakeBoy]

Homai
Calrose Rice
Medium Grain
50 lbs
Item # 206
$25.83
http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/Product/206b.jpg

C&F
Dry Pinto Beans
25 lbs
Item # 26013
$15.72
http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/Product/26013b.jpg


It'll keep you alive...with some $ left to spare.

[Blake]

i want to see some prices and pictures of the products that would feed one person for $150 a month.

http://64.19.142.12/www.healthcastle.com/images/products/cer_kelloggs_frosted_flakes.jpg

theyre goooood, tbh.

15 boxes and 4 gallons of milk should cover it.

[clambake]

Homai
Calrose Rice
Medium Grain
50 lbs
Item # 206
$25.83
http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/Product/206b.jpg

C&F
Dry Pinto Beans
25 lbs
Item # 26013
$15.72
http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/Product/26013b.jpg


It'll keep you alive...with some $ left to spare.

that doesn't sound like you want to keep them alive.

[DarrinS]

You probably could if you ate nothing but Ramen. 6 for a dollar after all. Then again, you'd probably also have hypertension within a year so you'd better factor that in. Quality of life might also suffer just a tad if you're eating nothing but Ramen.


I ate that shit daily back when I was in college.

[MannyIsGod]

I ate that shit daily back when I was in college.

So did my GF her freshman year. The amount of sodium in one pack is fucking nuts.

[RandomGuy]

ah shit, here we go.

Conservatives going shopping. These conversations always end up at the grocery store.

:rolleyes

The end result is always oversimplification and "feel good" ego pumping bullshit on the part of the shopper, and never anything really all that applicable to actual poor people. :bang

[ElNono]

Being a miser at rent, utilities, food, and clothing. No cable, car, insurance, etc. A person can eat on $150 for a month. I added $110 monthly per additional person considering combining meals. I figured $50 monthly per person on clothing. Rent and utilities $750 for a single person, with an additional $95 per person. Maybe I should have included some transportation expenses.

Ideas?

My electricity bill alone is $100+ and I'm rarely home other than sleeping on weekdays and weekends. Rent is a little over $900 and it's about as cheap you can find around here. There's no walkways or buses nearby, so some sort of vehicle is needed (you can probably buy a $500 car, but you have to put gas on it). Frankly, I would find it very difficult to live around here for less than $20K/year. That's roughly $1.6K/month = $400/week = $10/hour for a full time job.

[RandomGuy]

My electricity bill alone is $100+ and I'm rarely home other than sleeping on weekdays and weekends. Rent is a little over $900 and it's about as cheap you can find around here. There's no walkways or buses nearby, so some sort of vehicle is needed (you can probably buy a $500 car, but you have to put gas on it). Frankly, I would find it very difficult to live around here for less than $20K/year. That's roughly $1.6K/month = $400/week = $10/hour for a full time job.

Don't forget $500-$1000+ for daycare, if one has kids.

Kind of hard to hold down a job with your kids in tow.

[DarrinS]

So did my GF her freshman year. The amount of sodium in one pack is fucking nuts.

Yeah, Ramen is not the healthiest thing to eat. Its that seasoning packet that has the shitload of sodium.

[SA210]

What about Raymen?

Everybody Loves Raymen

:lmao

[CuckingFunt]

Since a car was intentionally left out of Wild Cobra's calculations, was there an allowance for taxis? Because even if the Costco (don't forget membership fees) and the bread outlet store are on public transportation routes, bus drivers tend to frown upon people who get on with giant bags of rice, beans, bulk packages of Raymen, and three loaves of bread.

Getting up and down the stairs to a subway platform would be difficult, too.

And kids can't help carry anything that heavy.

And most taxis I've ridden in have posted signs that they charge more if you've got groceries.

[CuckingFunt]

In other words, if you've assumed both bulk purchases AND no car, you can rest assured your calculations are fucked.

[DarrinS]

My mom was one of those shuttle drivers at the airport in the early 70's. Somehow, we managed to survive w/out any govt assistance.

[ElNono]

My mom was one of those shuttle drivers at the airport in the early 70's. Somehow, we managed to survive w/out any govt assistance.

It probably paid a decent salary. Shuttles to-from the airport here are pretty expensive. Taxi service is almost prohibitive ($100 for the trip, airport is 40 miles away).

[DarrinS]

It probably paid a decent salary. Shuttles to-from the airport here are pretty expensive. Taxi service is almost prohibitive ($100 for the trip, airport is 40 miles away).

No, like the ones that take you from parking lot to terminal. Definitely not lucrative.

[ElNono]

No, like the ones that take you from parking lot to terminal. Definitely not lucrative.

Those jobs rarely are. They can get you by though.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not the 50s but its also not the 70s. Things may have - just maybe - have been cheaper back in relative to wages. I have a hard time believing your mother raised you as a single parent without assistance on a job like that, however. You're definitely leaving something out.

[SnakeBoy]

My electricity bill alone is $100+ and I'm rarely home other than sleeping on weekdays and weekends.

WTF? Do you live in an shoe box with no ac? Mines $500 on a good month.

[ElNono]

WTF? Do you live in an shoe box with no ac? Mines $500 on a good month.

I rent, and only have one window-unit type of AC that is part of the apartment. Everything here is electric: heater, AC, stove, etc.

But we're only here for dinner and sleeping during the weekdays, and we do spend a little more time on the weekends.

[Wild Cobra]

Damn, that must be really good bread.
LOL...

I meant $5.50, not $550.

Sorry, but wasn't that an obvious mistake?

Besides, the price keeps changing. Just bough three loaves today at $5.29. There are 17 slices per loaf, including the two heels. The Franz outlet store (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=140th+and+division+portland+or&hl=en&ll=45.519134,-122.513931&spn=0.001445,0.00191&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.519132,-122.514253&panoid=BQtMNLLBhGkuKc3E5PHISA&cbp=12,139.05,,0,12.66) is less than 2 miles away from me.

[Wild Cobra]

My electricity bill alone is $100+ and I'm rarely home other than sleeping on weekdays and weekends. Rent is a little over $900 and it's about as cheap you can find around here. There's no walkways or buses nearby, so some sort of vehicle is needed (you can probably buy a $500 car, but you have to put gas on it). Frankly, I would find it very difficult to live around here for less than $20K/year. That's roughly $1.6K/month = $400/week = $10/hour for a full time job.
That's all good for where you live, i will not say you are wrong. Goes to show that the poverty live also needs to vary by where you live. Although the Portland Metro area is one of the more expensive places to live nationwide, it isn't the most expensive. I can see NJ as being expensive because it can be considered part of the NYC metro area.

I will accept that the poverty line changes with location. I just don't accept that the poverty live is as high as it is commonly said to be.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't forget $500-$1000+ for daycare, if one has kids.

Kind of hard to hold down a job with your kids in tow.
If one has kids, then where is the other parent?

[Wild Cobra]

Since a car was intentionally left out of Wild Cobra's calculations, was there an allowance for taxis? Because even if the Costco (don't forget membership fees) and the bread outlet store are on public transportation routes, bus drivers tend to frown upon people who get on with giant bags of rice, beans, bulk packages of Raymen, and three loaves of bread.

Getting up and down the stairs to a subway platform would be difficult, too.

And kids can't help carry anything that heavy.

And most taxis I've ridden in have posted signs that they charge more if you've got groceries.
Just what do you think "poverty" is suppose to mean?" Now low income is another story.

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, if you've assumed both bulk purchases AND no car, you can rest assured your calculations are fucked.
I'm, not assuming bulk purchases, but yes, no car. A person would need to live walking distance to a store, and carry bags home. Probably make 2-3 trips a week. I've lived like that before, I see no reason why others cannot.

[Wild Cobra]

I rent, and only have one window-unit type of AC that is part of the apartment. Everything here is electric: heater, AC, stove, etc.

But we're only here for dinner and sleeping during the weekdays, and we do spend a little more time on the weekends.
Turn the temperature down on the water heater. That makes a huge difference.

[Winehole23]

He didn't make a comment in the op. He could have meant poor people have it really good or he could have meant calling poor americans poor helps them muslim terrorists...it's hard to say.Because he hides behind his own headline.

So yeah, you're right. It's hard to tell. Darrin weaseled out again without revealing his opinion. Point of guile.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I may have low balled the sandwich price a bit. Shopped at the Franz outlet store and WalMart after making that post. I bought three loaves of their better breads for $5.29. Bough the 22 oz. Miracle Whip squeeze bottle for $3.44. I probably use 1 oz per sandwich. The Gulden's Spicy Brown Mustard was $1.18 for a 12 oz bottle. It claims 68 servings, and I probably get that much or more since I only spread a light layer on a piece of bread before applying the Miracle Whip. The meats I buy are the thick sliced Foster farms in 6 oz packages, 9 slices per. I use 2 slices, they cost $3.48. I use one slice of Gossner Swiss cheese at $1.97 for 8 one oz. slices. I use 1 slice of Tillamock Cheddar at 90 slices for $7.98. The two pound unsliced loaves are $5.98, but I pay the extra $2 for the sliced. I didn't check greens prices, and don't always put any on anyway. Without lettuce, it comes to $1.4894 per sandwich. It's a filling sandwich since I'm not using the wimpy ass enriched bread. Anyway, since it's that much at low pricing, it probably costs more like $2.00 to $2.20 per sandwich at supermarket prices. But remember, I'm buying high quality rather than value shopping also.

[boutons_deux]

Here's WC and St Ronnie's Welfare Queen lie, in other words:

"The actual service going to people isn’t going to decline, the people sucking off the program are going to be the ones that lose."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/22/276074/coburn-sucking-off-programs/

========

So, here ya go: poor means being without A/C due to the Banksters' Great Depression. How many banksters living without A/C in 100F?

States Cut Programs Helping Families Pay Their Electric Bills During Record Heat Wave

The government cut $400 million for low-income energy assistance this year, and the cuts will be equally problematic when winter comes. Most the assistance actually goes to helping families pay heating bills in winter.

Requests for heating and cooling assistance have skyrocketed since the recession began, with 8.9 million households receiving federal help this year compared to 5.8 million in 2008-09. Yet Michigan saw its federal funding plummet from $238 million to $38 million, and Texas’ funding fell by $28.6 million.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/23/276728/states-cut-programs-heatwave/

[ElNono]

I can see NJ as being expensive because it can be considered part of the NYC metro area.
I will accept that the poverty line changes with location.

Agree. It completely does. I have family in south texas, and whenever we visit we're shocked with the price difference even on basic things (ie: 4 lemons for $1 in Texas, 1 lemon for $2 here).

[boutons_deux]

News Corp slimebags lying their asses off:

Fox Cites Ownership Of Appliances To Downplay Hardship Of Poverty In America

Fox News hosts are citing a Heritage Foundation report about the ownership of appliances among the poor in America to ask, in the words of Bill O'Reilly, "So how can you be so poor and have all this stuff?" In reality, the poor in America face hardships in areas that deeply affect their lives, such as health, education, housing, and access to healthy food and legal services -- regardless of their ability to purchase a microwave oven.

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20110722-heritagepoverty.jpg

"Poverty Is Mostly About Housing, Health Care, And Education"

Over the past 50 years, televisions have gotten a lot cheaper and college has gotten a lot more expensive. Consequently, even a low income person can reliably obtain a level of television-based entertainment that would blow the mind of a millionaire from 1961. At the same time, if you're looking to live in a safe neighborhood with good public schools in a metropolitan area with decent job opportunities you're going to find that this is quite expensive. Health care has become incredibly expensive.

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/201107220001

[Wild Cobra]

Here's WC and St Ronnie's Welfare Queen lie, in other words:

"The actual service going to people isn’t going to decline, the people sucking off the program are going to be the ones that lose."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/22/276074/coburn-sucking-off-programs/


Yep, and googling the phrase gives my 5 pages of that quote cut short. I would like to see the full context of the statement he made, it could be out of context.

[boutons_deux]

"I would like to see the full context of the statement he made"

WC's reflexive "context is everything".

Do you google?

anyway, the TP article had the surrounding paragraph of that quote, if you don't feel what remains of your brain won't be frazzled by going to the TP site.

The obviously porno/fellatio "sucking off" is just another example of Repug oil stooge/climate denier Senator raising the bar on public discourse.

[Wild Cobra]

"I would like to see the full context of the statement he made"

WC's reflexive "context is everything".

Do you google?

anyway, the TP article had the surrounding paragraph of that quote, if you don't feel what remains of your brain won't be frazzled by going to the TP site.

The obviously porno/fellatio "sucking off" is just another example of Repug oil stooge/climate denier Senator raising the bar on public discourse.
And your reflex is to believe anything a liberal rag frames for you. What if he was answering what the democrats plan would do, or a hypothetical. What did he say before and after?

Sorry, without better context, what if edited is meaningless, unless you can place full trust in those presenting it.

[Wild Cobra]

xnmQN5AHY9g

[boutons_deux]

"liberal rag frames for you"

no, it was a quote (show where the quote is wrong).

It was very typical of a Repug sociopath framing his own objective as "we gonna cut $100Bs off Medicare/Medicaid and nobody is gonna have any pain other than Welfare Queens sucking off the government"

[Wild Cobra]

"liberal rag frames for you"

no, it was a quote (show where the quote is wrong).

It was very typical of a Repug sociopath framing his own objective as "we gonna cut $100Bs off Medicare/Medicaid and nobody is gonna have any pain other than Welfare Queens sucking off the government"
Show me that link. When I google it, I only get your post.

[boutons_deux]

COBURN: The point is where’s the efficiency in that? The actual service going to people isn’t going to decline, the people sucking off the program are going to be the ones that lose.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/22/276074/coburn-sucking-off-programs/
and there's a youtube so you can get you warm, fuzzy visual context

and there's youtube on that page, so you can get a warm, fuzzy visual context to go with Coburn's high class sucking-off quote. You Stay Classy, Oklahoma.

[Wild Cobra]

COBURN: The point is where’s the efficiency in that? The actual service going to people isn’t going to decline, the people sucking off the program are going to be the ones that lose.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/22/276074/coburn-sucking-off-programs/
and there's a youtube so you can get you warm, fuzzy visual context

and there's youtube on that page, so you can get a warm, fuzzy visual context to go with Coburn's high class sucking-off quote. You Stay Classy, Oklahoma.
Yes, yes, yes asshole I know. But what context was that in?

[boutons_deux]

In what context was the context? :lol :lol :lol

[Wild Cobra]

In what context was the context? :lol :lol :lol
No it wasn't. Was he stating his position, or someone elses? What came before that statement.