Shedding some light on Poverty in America

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Poverty, and "the poor", are a continuing item of discussion on many fronts and in many places, and that includes ATS, too. I remember well what a recent immigrant said when asked why he moved here: ".... I want to live in a country where even the poor people are fat." With that in mind, the following link(s) provides information that will shed light on the truth of poverty in America.
 



www.heritage.org
Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers; to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning; Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars; Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions; Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While this story will not fall into the category of "Breaking News", these reports only become available as statistics from the previous year are made available or, as is the case here, when the Census material is published.

While there are people who are affected by events and circumstances beyond their control (Hurricanes; sudden health problems, etc), it appears obvious that the vast majority of those classified as "poor" or "in poverty" are not doing bad at all compared to true poverty that can be seen in many other countries.

While it is indeed sad to think that a small percentage of Americans are doing less well than the article indicates, our federal and state taxes support hundreds of programs to help those in need. The majority are poor because of their own actions, or their unwillingness to help themselves; instead, they prefer to take advantage of social programs that are mis-managed or just plain broken. There will always be the "will-nots and "do-nots', and will remain the "have-nots." It is those people I have a problem with, and no sympathy for.

Related News Links:
www.johnlocke.org

[edit on 22-12-2005 by zappafan1]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by zappafan1]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by zappafan1]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by zappafan1]


[edit on 12-26-2005 by Valhall]

[edit on 12-26-2005 by Valhall]




posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Val
There's a big difference between poor and destitute. Comparing the poor of the richest nation with the poor of any other nation is an excercise in apples and oranges. This is a country, after all, that can spend upwards of half a trillion dollars every year fighting paper tigers in the sand and shadow wars in the jungle. It's patently ridiculous to give any credit to the US government for keeping its citizens more comfortable than Congolese or Bolivian citizens, when by all rights we could support the food needs of the entire world with our state dinner caviar budget.

Government apologists often leap on the chance to compare the standard of living in this country to other places, in terms of consumer electronics and what-not, but to me that smacks of poor judgement. I have lived in America for most of my life, but I certainly wouldn't consider Drive Thru, TiVo, and Kmart to be the marks of a responsible society. The fact that many poorer nations have better education and healthcare can only be explained by the complete lack of competency displayed by corporate-sponsored politicians, not to mention the roll-over-and-groan attitude of the voters.

There are nowhere near as many destitute folks here as there are in any given African nation, but that's not really the point is it? We're not in a competition with anyone else. The fact that poor people in country X have fewer sofas and VCRs than poor people in America is really nothing but a temptation to gloat over a hollow trophy.

One final note, I wouldn't think it would take a census report to clue people in to the fact that the poor in America have more material posessions than the poor in other nations. This silly place is flush with plastic and plush. Of course, if you ask me, the things that are really important in life aren't made in China, and can't be purchased at WalMart.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I gave this a "YES" vote. It meets the criteria and it's a good topic.

Americans have a totally different definition of "poor" than other countries have. We consider families to be poor if thier vehicle is older than 10 years, they have the basic or no cable at all and they live in the ghettos of town. Nevermind the fact that these living conditions would be considered "upper class" in many countries.

On the other hand, many people that are considered "poor" in the states drive the latest model car and have direct TV.....but they still get gov't help with food stamps, metro passes, and welfare.

[edit on 26/12/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
WyrdeOne,

Thanks for the comments and I believe they are all logical. But just wanted to clarify - I didn't write this article, I simply bumped it because it had had an error in the title that had kept it hidden from the members for voting.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
"While it is indeed sad to think that a small percentage of Americans are doing less well than the article indicates, our federal and state taxes support hundreds of programs to help those in need. The majority are poor because of their own actions, or their unwillingness to help themselves; instead, they prefer to take advantage of social programs that are mis-managed or just plain broken. There will always be the "will-nots and "do-nots', and will remain the "have-nots." It is those people I have a problem with, and no sympathy for. "

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

those hundreds of programs out there that help those in need, also distort the picture clouding just how vast the probleml is. so, we really have no idea just how many are "poor" untill census are taken and such...
and, well, isn't this foundation one of the ones that would like less of our tax money being used for these programs? let's take away the safety net, and see just how poor the people really are.....and just how much our whole economic system is depending on these programs, not just those recieving the benefits....

as far as those few who are really having to go without, and their lack of desire to do something about it....okay...I admit it, I should have kicked my hard working husband out on his arse, and become totally dependant on the government for everyone of my needs, since although he was making too much to qualify for anything....including help with the medical bills, he sure the heck wasn't making enough to add my health insurance and out of pocket expenses and still maintain a roof over our heads. is that what you want to hear...good, I've said it.

have they've closed off our borders yet, so that stream of illegals aren't flowing in...or are the poor still having to compete with them for that minimum wage job that is required for the benefits that will keep them alive?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The source article is almost two years old. I don't think this is "news".



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Val



I thought I discovered a bug when I saw your name and 0 replies. I just assumed you wrote the article, forgetting completely that you had the ability to bump. I'm sorry, my bad.



For the record, I'm incredibly biased when it comes to this issue. I'm unemployed and overskilled for this crappy service economy we're transitioning into, and the government programs I've investigated were only useful for mothers, so I'm a little bitter.

Food stamps were impossible for me to get without a job, and if I had a job, I wouldn't need the damn food stamps. Also, unemployment doesn't usually pay out if you're self-employed, which I was (as a freelance digital artist and data manager). And, to top it all off, I now live in a busted factory town, so the grim reality of wage slavery and welfare subsistence is not something I read about in the news, it's outside my window, it's encapsulated in conversations at the gas station, it's evident every time I turn around.

More and more this country is reminiscent of the Southern 'aristocracy' during reconstruction. Bright paint slapped on to mask structural decay...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Dawnstar: The Census is hardly the source that would "cloud" the statistics. Also, the information is gotten from other souces, such as welfare questionaires, and info submitted from other programs. The Welfare-to-work program shows that if people HAVE to do it, and are capable of doing it, they WILL find work. Why do you think we have such a large problem with illegal aliens (criminals)? .... because Americans, even those who are poor or "destitute" feel that that type of work is somehow beneath them, which is the result of the increasing poor work ethics.... and the terrible education that students receive (going back 30 years), and lack of personal responsibility. Welfare, WIC, food stamps... those thing are not "rights".

Your description of your circumstance of not being able to get aid makes my point for me; If you were able to keep the money that comes out of your paychecks every week (for those programs) then you would be able to put it towards your own healthcare needs, insurance, etc. When people have to pay for theeir own things, then they shop around for the best deal, which drives the costs of those things down, making it more affordable for everyone.

There's a very big difference between a "hand up" and a "handout." It used to be (and still is) that if one wanted to increase their income... to better theirselves, then they would work two jobs. Now we have people who want to make $12.00 per hour, but have no skills that deserve that type of pay.

It's the mentally ill and handicapped that require assistance, not free money just because one has a baby every year, and a broken or one-parent family.
American society was much better off before the social programs that started with Roosevelt, and helped along by Johnson (thanks to Kennedy's tax rate reductions). It's not governments job to provide a safety net.
Most of the poor have the time and availability of re-education programs t pull themselves up...... if they want to.
.........................................

SkepticOverlord: Well... one has to wait for the newest information to become available. I sudmitted this because of the references to "the poor" in other threads, as a source of reference.
..........................................

WyrdeOne: I agree with the change to a "service economy", but that is something we can't change. More and more people are finding out that if they wish to keep their current profession they have to relocate. Good luck in your job search; try one of the many online sources of employment. You have a portfolio, don't you?
Yeaah... unemployment for the self-employed is a real sore issue with me, also. It's BS to the max. Of course, i don't agree with the idea of government-run unemployment, either, as it removes another bit of self-responsibility, and supports a huge beauracracy..... which is the main job of government. Remember.. the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government job.


"..... ridiculous to give any credit to the US government for keeping its citizens more comfortable


REPLY: It's not government job to do that, or to help the citizens of any other country for that matter. Liberty and Freedom has raised the baseline of human existance above anything the world has known, and it started right here. Most all of the third world countries don't allow that in their countries. Most all of the poorest countries are awash in resources, but the people have not the freedom to act upon them.

As for better healthcare.... how do you mean better? Like Canada.... where more people come to America for healthcare every day? Just curious of your definition of "better."

I agree with you on the "important things" in life. One has only to look at the divorce rate here to see the lack of understanding in the important things.
......................................



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
zappafan1:

what I said was that those programs cloud the picture, not the census...read my post again.....what I meant was, I cannot walk through any given neighborhood and judge by the number of starving children, delapidated houses, and barefooted women that there is x% of improvished people in that neighborhood...when talking about the poor, we have done such a good job of taken care of most of them, well, the person you are talking to could be one of those poor, and you wouldn't recognize it. it might be kinder, and more humane, but it also makes it easier for problems to sneak up on us, while we wait for that census or whatever to be compiled.

I've have talked to quite a few who held those now unwanted jobs in the past....they used to make a half-way decent living at those jobs. to listen to them talk, it kind of sounds like when the mexicans moved in, well, the employers decided that they would do a better job, for less money!! so those wages went down, those who were making decent wages found alternative employment, in areas where they could make a decent living.
But, let me ask you this, since you are so gung-hoe about this welfare to work program....okay, when my kids were young, in order for me to work, my husband would have had to subsidize my paycheck....I wouldn't make enough to pay for the childcare of three children. It wasn't economically feasible for me to work, so I didn't. I imagine that this problem has only increased throughout the last decade?? So, you have no problem with the government using MORE of you taxmoney, so that single mom of three or four young children can work???

And well, as far as the healthcare situation, or let's just take the whole shabang....the medicare, the hud, the heap, the food stamps, all of it....
Hey, I'm game, let's just cut it all off for all those who are able to work.....irregardless of weather or not they are working!! What the heck, it won't affect me much at all, except for maybe what little we buy might go up in price just a tad to compensate the fact that many of the businesses we deal with are now paying their workers far less than what they require to live....and well, alot of their employees were relying on these programs...
Luckily, I don't work in the healthcare field or the insurance companies that cater to them, so I wouldn't have to worry about my wage or salary dropping like a rock when the hospitals, drug companies, and healthcare providers face the choice of either losing alot of patients, or accepting what they can pay, or never being paid!! and, well, I don't own any real estate that I am renting out, so I wouldn't have to worry about chosing between lowering my rent to a more manageable level, or having an empty home! and, I don't own any stock in such companies that would be affected as our economy scrambled to make up for the chaos that having so many of the population change from being buyers in the economy to not being, while others have more money, money to save, money to invest whatever, but more than likely, they wouldn't be paying for a second rented apartment, more food, heat, and the other stuff that the poor used their benefits for. and, well, I am not president bush, who brags about all those jobs he created, so it won't bother me a bit when so many of those created jobs disappear because they were in the healthcare sector of the economy!

hey, I am all for it.....I don't rely on the government for sqaut, and well, not only would I expect to see more money in my pocket, but alot of what I buy alot cheaper as the companies lower prices to accomodate those that are no longer being given the money for their rent, food, electricity, ect. ect. ect.......not to mention healthcare! but, I really think that the idea of really taking it all away, for all except those who are truly unable to fend for themselves is just a bluff on the conservative's part. Since they have been actively taking money from me, to give to someone else, so they would buy those things that I have decided that are just too overpriced for me, and therefore go without and then sitting at the backend, collecting it from those "poor" people. or investing in the stock of those companies reaping the profits.

they'll just keep doing the balancing act they have been doing.....just how many can we cut from the programs this year, without having so many starve, or be homeless for society to take notice and react and without having our stocks plummit.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
zappafan1:

what I said was that those programs cloud the picture, not the census...read my post again.....what I meant was, I cannot walk through any given neighborhood and judge by the number of starving children, delapidated houses, and barefooted women that there is x% of improvished people in that neighborhood...when talking about the poor, we have done such a good job of taken care of most of them, well, the person you are talking to could be one of those poor, and you wouldn't recognize it. it might be kinder, and more humane, but it also makes it easier for problems to sneak up on us, while we wait for that census or whatever to be compiled.

I've have talked to quite a few who held those now unwanted jobs in the past....they used to make a half-way decent living at those jobs. to listen to them talk, it kind of sounds like when the mexicans moved in, well, the employers decided that they would do a better job, for less money!! so those wages went down, those who were making decent wages found alternative employment, in areas where they could make a decent living.
But, let me ask you this, since you are so gung-hoe about this welfare to work program....okay, when my kids were young, in order for me to work, my husband would have had to subsidize my paycheck....I wouldn't make enough to pay for the childcare of three children. It wasn't economically feasible for me to work, so I didn't. I imagine that this problem has only increased throughout the last decade?? So, you have no problem with the government using MORE of you taxmoney, so that single mom of three or four young children can work???

And well, as far as the healthcare situation, or let's just take the whole shabang....the medicare, the hud, the heap, the food stamps, all of it....
Hey, I'm game, let's just cut it all off for all those who are able to work.....irregardless of weather or not they are working!! What the heck, it won't affect me much at all, except for maybe what little we buy might go up in price just a tad to compensate the fact that many of the businesses we deal with are now paying their workers far less than what they require to live....and well, alot of their employees were relying on these programs...
Luckily, I don't work in the healthcare field or the insurance companies that cater to them, so I wouldn't have to worry about my wage or salary dropping like a rock when the hospitals, drug companies, and healthcare providers face the choice of either losing alot of patients, or accepting what they can pay, or never being paid!! and, well, I don't own any real estate that I am renting out, so I wouldn't have to worry about chosing between lowering my rent to a more manageable level, or having an empty home! and, I don't own any stock in such companies that would be affected as our economy scrambled to make up for the chaos that having so many of the population change from being buyers in the economy to not being, while others have more money, money to save, money to invest whatever, but more than likely, they wouldn't be paying for a second rented apartment, more food, heat, and the other stuff that the poor used their benefits for. and, well, I am not president bush, who brags about all those jobs he created, so it won't bother me a bit when so many of those created jobs disappear because they were in the healthcare sector of the economy!

hey, I am all for it.....I don't rely on the government for sqaut, and well, not only would I expect to see more money in my pocket, but alot of what I buy alot cheaper as the companies lower prices to accomodate those that are no longer being given the money for their rent, food, electricity, ect. ect. ect.......not to mention healthcare! but, I really think that the idea of really taking it all away, for all except those who are truly unable to fend for themselves is just a bluff on the conservative's part. Since they have been actively taking money from me, to give to someone else, so they would buy those things that I have decided that are just too overpriced for me, and therefore go without and then sitting at the backend, collecting it from those "poor" people. or investing in the stock of those companies reaping the profits.

they'll just keep doing the balancing act they have been doing.....just how many can we cut from the programs this year, without having so many starve, or be homeless for society to take notice and react and without having our stocks plummit.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by dawnstar]


REPLY to paragraph one: Those programs cloud the issue by making things worse than they really are, worse than the census indicates, because if they report things are actually getting better, then someone is at risk of losing their state/union job.
If there are "starving" children, then it's the parents fault.
Barefoot women? Please! They must prefer to go without. Again, it would be her fault she has no shoes.

REPLY to Paragraph two: Those you talked to might have to have two jobs, if need be. That was the norm not so long ago.
Educating ones-self, and finding alternative employment, is the key.. but it will only happen if they take it upon themselves to do so.

Reply to paragraph three: Did you have triplets? Did you do anything to prevent another pregnancy until you could afford more children? Most people don't do the math before they start families. Having children that one cannot afford amounts to child abuse.
No... actually, things have gotten much better over the past 6 years. The benefits from the reduction of tax rates went mostly to families of three or more.
No, I'm for that mother of three or four to better herself and get a better job, and to not have any more children 'till she does; And she should look for a husband.

REPLY to paragraph four: Not cut benefits completely, but gradually, as the individual improves their own lot in life.
It's not the job of businesses to pay someone what they "require" to have a good life. Every job has a value... a fair compensation for hours worked. The idea of a "living wage" is crap, and actually reduces the availability of jobs. Look at Home Depot, for one example; their unions asked for more and more, so getting machines that allow customers to check out their own purchases became more economical to own. So, instead of having a checkout person for each aisle, now there's one for every two or three aisles.
If a person is taking home, say, $8.00 per hour, the compamy is actually paying around $14.00 to $16.00 per hour for that employee, due to unemployment costs and workers comp.

REPLY to paragraph five: The only suffering in the healthcare industry is a LACK of people; nurses in particular. Five million jobs created (average per year since Bush was in office) is an astounding feat, considering what the economy went through since 9-11. Oh... government doesn't really create jobs (except, maybe, government jobs, which do nothing for the economy). The only way government can create jobs is by getting out of the way of people and companies, usually done by lowering the tax burden, whch Bush did... and it worked very well, just as it always does.

REPLY to paragraph six: No, the price of goods will not become less expensive, but that doesn't mean they would go up, either.
No, it's not a conservative issue. Look back in history and you'll find that most every social program is a Democratic issue, and it goes back to Roosevelt and Johnson. Now that the people are used to all the handouts, even the conservatives are forced to vote for some of those programs.
The "profits" of those companies is what gives them the opporunity to make more products and therefore hire more people. It's the "evil rich" that provide 80% of the jobs, and which also offers stocks in their companies, 64% of which are owned by senior citizens.

Oh.. congratulations on getting out of NY. That will/should be a good start on things being better for you; I've seen what the taxes are there; it's criminal.

(edit for spelling and content)

[edit on 28-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
It seems to me that American workers get screwed over worse then there NZ and Aust counter parts. Its simple logic when the min wage is less then $10 and people have to pay for health care there going to be in a tight spot. Here in NZ the min wage is spose to reach $12 by 2007.

Typical right wing governments kwwp wages low and then expect people to pay more for the likes of health care.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
two $7 an hour jobs still don't make a living wage!!!
and I'm sorry, I still don't see the sanity in adding an additional $9 plus to the benefits just to force some single mom to work one of those $7 an hour jobs!!!

there was a time, I know there was, when a taxi driver could even provide the basic needs of his family.....no extravagant lifestyle, but the needs.....he was my father....
now, lol.....you got illegals working the construction jobs, living three or more families in a home just to make ends meet!

and yes, the government invests alot of money to "create jobs", train doctors, train nurses, develope drugs, ect. ect.....you'd think that with all the assistance the healthcare industry is getting, they could at least make their services affordable for everyone, instead of expecting the taxpayer to subsidize them on that end also!


[edit on 30-12-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
two $7 an hour jobs still don't make a living wage!!!
and I'm sorry, I still don't see the sanity in adding an additional $9 plus to the benefits just to force some single mom to work one of those $7 an hour jobs!!!

there was a time, I know there was, when a taxi driver could even provide the basic needs of his family.....no extravagant lifestyle, but the needs.....he was my father....
now, lol.....you got illegals working the construction jobs, living three or more families in a home just to make ends meet!

and yes, the government invests alot of money to "create jobs", train doctors, train nurses, develope drugs, ect. ect.....you'd think that with all the assistance the healthcare industry is getting, they could at least make their services affordable for everyone, instead of expecting the taxpayer to subsidize them on that end also!


[edit on 30-12-2005 by dawnstar]


There is no such thing as a "living" wage. What you consider a living wage would be different for evry ten people you ask. $14 per hour is enough to get by very well for a lot of people..... unless their family is a large one. If for a three menber family, if $14 an hour isn't enough, then one would have to reconsider many things, like choice of profession, where you live, and on and on....

As I mentioned, very few do the math before making family decisions. East of the Mississippi, it now costs $138,000 (average) to raise one boy child from birth to the age of 18 (if a girl, or West of the river, it's more). That equals about $7666.00 PER YEAR, which does not include a mortgage or rent, or costs to have a vehicle, taxes, etc. So, if you have one child and decide to have (by refusing to use protection of some type) another one, you would have to guarantee a wage increase of $7666.00 per year. Do you expect for an employer to raise your wages because of a decision made by you and your significant other?


The government invests a lot of our tax dollars helping with college costs, but do very little to sponsor drug companies directly.

Any given job, whether shining shoes, serving burgers, being an accountant or nurse, etc, is only worth so much.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
It seems to me that American workers get screwed over worse then there NZ and Aust counter parts. Its simple logic when the min wage is less then $10 and people have to pay for health care there going to be in a tight spot. Here in NZ the min wage is spose to reach $12 by 2007.

Typical right wing governments kwwp wages low and then expect people to pay more for the likes of health care.


REPLY: No... it's not the wages... it's the taxes one pays that screws up most everything. Remember, too, that if someone is being paid $10 per hour into their pocket, they are actually are being paid $17 to $19 dollars an hour because of unemployment insurance, workers comp, etc. Then they pay around 16% or more of that $10 for state and federal taxes.

At least in America, the free market sets the price of doing business.. like wages. Also, it's the Marxist social programs from the Left, not the right (actually the "center") that cost so much in those taxes.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Zapaafan1 your argument is to general for example the PM of Aust John Howard brought in a GST so it not only lefy wing governments that burden people with taxs. You have to bear in mind that people in many countries arent paying for health care insurance out of there wages so your argument may only make sense from an American point of view.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Zapaafan1 your argument is to general for example the PM of Aust John Howard brought in a GST so it not only lefy wing governments that burden people with taxs. You have to bear in mind that people in many countries arent paying for health care insurance out of there wages so your argument may only make sense from an American point of view.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by xpert11]


REPLY: I agree with you; I only have years of extensive research in economics/politics as it pertains to America.

I do have a question, though: Where do the governments of NZ and Australia get their money from? The government here has only the money they take from citizens and companies every week at the point of a gun, or through through threat of force.


".... people in many countries arent paying for health care insurance out of their wages"


REPLY: It would seem that the same is done in those countries, as, again, governments have no money they don't take from it's citizens in one form or another. From where does the money originate?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   


I do have a question, though: Where do the governments of NZ and Australia get their money from? The government here has only the money they take from citizens and companies every week at the point of a gun, or through through threat of force.


I didnt mean to imply that people in Aust and NZ dont pay taxs. What I was trying to say is this overall people in those two countries would pay less for healthcare. So If a NZder is getting $10 an hour he/she is getting closer to that amount. In other words she/he loses less money to the likes of private insurance.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Well... I can only reply as to the American economy and health care system. If companies weren't forced to pay insurance for it's employees, and if the damned government would get out of the health care business, there would be a dramatic drop in the costs of ealth care. There's just too many current examples of the negative effects of a "third-party-payer" health system, both economically and in the quality of the health care.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Just to throw an opinion in the ring:

I work two jobs about 30 hours a week each. One pays $7.50/hr, the other is a serving job making 3.15/hr + tips. I am not poor, but damn do I have to work a lot to live good.
I struggled through college, paying my own way for half, taking loans for the other half. After graduation with an associates in Computer Information Systems I cannot find a job paying more money than the local Best Buy, yet I have $5500 in student loan debts that need payed. I am lucky enough to have a girl to share rent, utilities, etc...and I dont have any kids.

I couldnt imagine doing what I am doing with children, or without the second job. Thats poverty by my standards.

I get squat from Uncle Sam, because I am over the poverty line. I consider myself part of the forgotten economic spectrum; Those of us who are lucky enough to work 65 hours a week so as not to be considered poor.

Just wanted to add an overlooked perspective.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
It goes on what you consider poverty or being poor. Most people ignore real poor communities and cities. Heritage foundations aren’t they a right wing think-tank?

If you go into Appalachia Mountains or the Mississippi and Alabama and some parts of Texas and Kansas you WILL see poverty. There is inner city poverty then there is country poverty. Yes I use to do volunteer work and I did see kids with no shoes. They may have a roof over their head but barely. The man said it Poor is Poor no matter where you live. If you cannot pay for basic things then your family suffers in so many different ways.

I know it is not really seen on TV and many many people do not go into those areas but it is here.
And we are not talking about single mom struggling poor we are talking about illiterate cant get a job because of the economy and no skills and my family is eating ketchup soup every night poor. I think some should travel outside the beltway and see some of there communities then maybe you would change your mind on poverty in America really is.


Materials cannot be used in who is poor mostly it is opportunities to me. Because you can buy something out of Wal-Mart does not make you have the ability to pay for rent, health, transportation, clothing, education, children, savings, retirement, etc....
It is the opportunity to pay for these things. Now if the opportunity is passed up then that is something else.

What I mean about opportunity is the right to a job that pays a living wage. Minimum wage is not a living wage. As a congressman put it “It is for teenagers wanting a little spending cash and to learn how to work.” Once you get to a certain age or mentality you want more in America you should have the opportunity but half do not and it is not because of health care. It might because of C.E.O. salaries , retirement, and "Perks" but not health care.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join