What is Poverty in America?

[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/2...ate-tax-rates/

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

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?

[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 ING 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/pover...ighlights.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.

ing 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 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 bull . Africa is loaded with natural resources and is still a hole.

[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.

ing 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]

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]

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 bull . Africa is loaded with natural resources and is still a hole.

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 ing 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 bull . Africa is loaded with natural resources and is still a hole.

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 ing 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.