Reply With Quote
damn richers with their fancy window units.luxuries like air-conditioning
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/18/...ty-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.”
damn richers with their fancy window units.luxuries like air-conditioning
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 bull "the poor aren't really poor, '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.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-20-2011 at 10:20 AM.
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:
Overweight = diabetesThe major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight.
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.
Sure. They should also take a good look at defense and a plethora of other programs that are the bulk of expenses.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.
Didn't this whole 'the poor own xxxxxx' was being discussed in the other thread?
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?
Yup.
Darrin just wants the debate to be in one with his choice of les. A subtle, but very deliberate tactic.
Oh man. I'm not even going to bother.
The real question is: Can they afford LED lights?
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.
Oh, and I can't wait for the obligatory 'But the 1920 middle class didn't have all this!'
Will those welfare checks even fill the Superdome?
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.
yet another failed thread by darrins...
fwiw
I stopped at heritage foundation
you are not poor unless you live in subsaharan conditions
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?
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.
How so?
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.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?
so what should the minimum standard of living be before a person has a right to ask for help?
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.
The observation is fine. It's the conclusion being drawn that being poor in this country ain't so bad that is problematic.
DarrinS won't be happy until the standard of living matches Rwanda.
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.
Do the poor own these houses?
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....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
