Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

Originally posted by Cuervo
Really, dude? You are going down that road? I'm done here.

It's pretty common knowledge that many homeless people are mentally ill/challenged and/or addicts.

I'm just saying, such people would tend not to survive very long in the wilderness of maine trying to live like this guy I'm talking about.

reply to post by SevenBeans


A whole lot more of them than you seem to think...there are responsible homeless people who work very hard every day trying not to be homeless. Most of today's homeless are homeless because of the crappy economy, not because they're lazy crazy drunk druggies.

As far as the BLM land goes: most of that land is actually Indian land held "in trust" (yeah, right), and leased to ranchers and mining companies for a few dollars a year, but I get your point.

Land isn't free, cheap, or even available in a lot of places, and the wherewithal necessary to build a house and garden is capital intensive, no matter what anyone thinks.

What the article says to me is "poor" people on govt subsidies are enjoying the same basic lifestyle as those of us who work for a living. The gap between govt benefit living and working is so slim that we are seeing a dramatic increase of people on food stamps and unemployment and welfare, etc. It isn't because there aren't jobs out there to get, there are jobs all over. People don't want the jobs because they are living great off the govt. If you are a high school grad and the best job you can get is under $20 an hour you might as well leech off society and enjoy your home, tv, AC, internet, PC, xbox, cell phone, etc.

reply to post by apacheman


Nobody has a right to a specific amount of money? In a free society, who has the "right" to make that call? Someone does not "need" something? Who's got the "right" to make that call?

Thats the rub. Some folks think that those who receive government assistance have no "right" to receive them to the extent that they have a certain level of material wealth. Others feel that wealthy folks have no right to their money.

Either way, it is not about "rights" at all and its not about "fairness". There is no such thing as fairness.

What it is about is creating public policy that is based on transparency. Its about making decisions about what the priorities are and the associated trade-offs are and creating policy to satisfy those priorities.

In any event, there are 385 billionaires in the country. Good luck making significant changes to the state affairs based on doing anything to those folks, including taking all of their money.

Thats the problem with liberal social policy. Tax the rich sounds great until the details hit the road and the rich are essentially families with two working parents with decent jobs. When Obama sells his class warfare agenda against the rich, nobody is thinking that he's talking about a system's analyst married to a paralegal, but when the tax policy hits the road, thats who pays the majority of the new taxes because there are way more of them and to "tax the rich" does not come close to capturing the money needed to satisfy the demands of the class warfare agenda.

reply to post by jjkenobi


What fantasyland do you live in?

6,000 people showed up to apply for 100 Mcjobs here recently...there are NO JOBS.

What jobs are being offered aren't enough to live on and are very sketchy as to length. It makes no sense to go off unemployment if the wages offered are less than the unemployment (based on your prior earnings), the job isn't guaranteed for long, and to requalify for unemployment costs you weeks without income at all when you live from paycheck to paycheck.

The system is failing...for all your smugness, it is failing you, too: it just hasn't hit you yet. Wait a few months and when it finally falls apart, your job disappears, and your resources run dry...we'll see how you feel then.


I know, I know...it'll never happen to you because you work hard in a safe industry.

I know lots of very poor people now who thought that, too.

Having a refridgerator and microwave is common sense. Only the rich can afford to fire up an oven with all natural produce. Poor people have to eat crappy microwave meals that need storing in a freezer.Poor people cannot afford real food or real cooking. It's hardly luxurious living.

Most people in poverty would forgo these things to live in a nice house on a nice piece of land and be able to provide for themselves without the worry of paying the next bill or plating up the next meal.

It's a blessing and a burden.

Originally posted by apacheman
A whole lot more of them than you seem to think...there are responsible homeless people who work very hard every day trying not to be homeless. Most of today's homeless are homeless because of the crappy economy, not because they're lazy crazy drunk druggies.

As far as the BLM land goes: most of that land is actually Indian land held "in trust" (yeah, right), and leased to ranchers and mining companies for a few dollars a year, but I get your point.

Land isn't free, cheap, or even available in a lot of places, and the wherewithal necessary to build a house and garden is capital intensive, no matter what anyone thinks.

Sorry if this comes across as mean, but you sound like an excuse maker.

None of those things are necesarily "capital intensive..." more like sweat and smarts intensive. Seriously, I'm no carpenter but even I could build a little cabin pretty quick and cheap (and my garden is doing just great, the seeds were very cheap).

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Nobody died from not having A/C. That is a falsity, and I know it is from your source, not from you directly.

People with other complicating factors, in extreme temperatures, with little or no mobility, might have died as a result of the combination of factors, but a human being can easily survive in 110 degree heat, as long as they have basic clean water.

If we were to believe people were dying from lack of A/C, then Ethiopia, Somalia, and Southern Mexico should not have any populations whatsoever. Since A/C is only about 100 years old, I wonder how all those previous generations were able to survive.

I think this is exactly the reason this article is important. People really believe crap like that. Some people really believe you can't live without A/C and an XBox and a Cellphone.

You don't believe people in America, much less Somalia die of the heat? You don't believe in heat-stroke?

This is not a difficult premise to check, and to what end do you deny the reality? I have a friend who died of heatstroke, but the cause of death was listed (at the family's request) as something heart related. There is a stigma associate with it-- that stigma is called "poverty.".

I believe the numbers are somewhere around 400 person per year have heatstroke listed as the primary cause.

As for Somalia-- who cares enough to count how many die and of what? Certainly not the average American. The Marines I knew were appalled at what they saw there-- but Joe Blow chanting "Give Peace a Chance" didn't want us there. When is the last time you saw a news report on Somalia?

For that matter-- when is the last time you saw a news-report about the plight (or causes?) of American homeless?

Out of sight= out of mind=exoneration -- since there is no problem, none of us has any culpability. You know? Like no one really dies of heatstroke--well, no one important-- no one we care about or will admit knowing.

Originally posted by apacheman
What fantasyland do you live in?

6,000 people showed up to apply for 100 Mcjobs here recently...there are NO JOBS.

I have a suggestion for you then... MOVE.

Originally posted by Frira
You don't believe people in America, much less Somalia die of the heat? You don't believe in heat-stroke?

This is not a difficult premise to check, and to what end do you deny the reality? I have a friend who died of heatstroke, but the cause of death was listed (at the family's request) as something heart related. There is a stigma associate with it-- that stigma is called "poverty."

It has very little to do with poverty, water is very cheap/free and can keep you cool in the hottest weather.

I've never had AC in my life... take your clothes off, put some ice or water on your head, stay hydrated.. DUH.

reply to post by NadaCambia


And therein lies the problem with why poor people stay poor and rich people stay rich. Do you really believe it is "cheaper" to live off microwave meals than it is to cook something at home?

Take your Stouffer's and Hot Pockets budget and apply it to some real food like rice, and beans, and canned goods, and see how much fuller your cabinets stay! When I was young and single, I could live for a month on $30 worth of ramen noodles, eggs, and cheese! I bet $30 of Hot Pockets won't last you a week!

I recommend reading.......
** The Millionairre Next Door ** as a start.

Who do you think spends more money on shoes, Millionairres or Poor People?
Who do you think spends more on cars?
Who do you think spends more on furniture?
Why do you suppose those kids from wealthy families do so well for themselves?

They learn to buy quality instead of quantity. There is an old saying about shoes. "A $200 pair of shoes lasts exactly twice as long as a $100 pair, but a $400 pair lasts a lifetime!"

The same can be said for furniture, or suits.

Millionairres rarely by "new" cars. They buy 2 and 3 year old cars. Millionairres rarely move from house to house. They buy a quality home, and they keep it and pay it off, and realize the appreciation in the Real Estate.

You are going to flame me, and I understand it, but it doesn't negate the fact that.....to a certain extent.....being poor is a lifestyle.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Some interesting data about the "poor" in America. Depite the news reports of America's poor living in shanty towns and tent cities, the reality is far different.

"Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care."

www.heritage.org...

A few relevant statistics percentage of "poor" folks who have various items

65.1% have more than one TV
63%.7 have cable or satellite TV
54.5 have a cell phone
49.3 have a non-portable stereo
38% have a PC
29.3% have internet service
29.3% have a video gaming system

Lets not suggest that folks are not having difficulty maintaining their lifestyle during these economic hard times.

Lets stop with the nonsense that someone with two TVs, cable TV and video games is poor. These are the folks who receive tax payer subsidies, what the left calls a "safety net".

I doubt that most tax payers would consider satellite TVs and cell phones vital components of the social safety net. Most would consider food, medical care, clothes and housing a safety net.

Its time to call what the current debate is all about and that is about redistributionism and socialism. Is it any wonder that the minority of folks who pay the taxes in this country don't want to pay more?

Its about time we had an honest discussion about what the objectives of our social policy are really all about because the current one, the one we have employeed since the Great Society in the 60s has been plain old socialism. The debate today is all about how far we want to extend it.


.

edit on 19-7-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)

Yea its not like being poor in a 1st world country is different from being poor in a 3rd world country.
We take stuff for granted in this country what people in other countrys would die for.What else is new? theres no debate here. Sure there are people who abuse the system. But the top 1% corrupt the system.
This post got to me as i haven't had a easy life so for some one to make out that poor people are just lazy bastards that make sure all there comforts are met pisses me right off. statistics are lies.

reply to post by dolphinfan


As you had stated earlier, the debate needs to refine the actual definition of 'rich' and 'poor'. 'Poverty' used to mean that the family was in constant risk. Hunger, shelter, necessary medical aid, education, and to some degree mobility are essential if one is to be a productive member of society. By that measure the American standard of living is far better than many other places.

Yet those places are not full of miserable people who wish they were dead, or are so dejected as to not even pursue raising a family. So it seems that it is a matter of standards which relate to the local culture or society.

Apparently, the conservative view presented in the OP and in the Buckley periodical mean to imply that if one has a car, a washer and dryer, a television, phone, and entertainment, one should not be considered poor or 'in poverty.' By that metric nearly everyone is rich.

I think part of the problem is the dilution of reality by media which conditions our culture to value consumption and popular status possessions over less profitable metrics.

There is no doubt that the social safety net is abused. But rather than eliminate the abuse, conservatives seem to proselytize the eradication of the safety net, or its transformation into some kind of punishment for the poor.

Of course, none of this would be as damning to our societal image if we had a strong sense of community and rejected the idea that we should fear the poor OR the rich. Unfortunately it is too easy for the rich to be insulated and isolated from the travails of their communities, and they often seek only to deal with each other. And the poor are often isolated by circumstance and incapable of making their way to better environments.

there is a level of social engineering to this; in particular the notion that there is some justification to the 'gods and clods' mentality... that there will always be a need for the poor and indigent to do menial and undesirable tasks for the rest of us.... the'rest of us' being a euphemism for the middle and upper class.

Some have envisioned a world where money is not necessary to conduct the act of living. But they are usually laughed at by the influential and aloof. And the poor reject them too because they want to be rich.

Materialism is the bait for greed. Miserliness is the refuge of the fearful. But in the end it is the prideful judgement of our fellow citizens that destroys our ability to coalesce into a community. Pride is the mother of all sins.

In the world of make-believe where trillions can vanish .... or even where trillions can claim to have existed without any tangible proof; we stand little hope of overcoming the divisions so easily foisted upon us. Unless we accept that the construct of money requires reform.... something which those with "more" money will never agree to.

reply to post by Frira

You don't believe people in America, much less Somalia die of the heat? You don't believe in heat-stroke?

Heat stroke from working hard on a tar roof? YES! Heat stroke from relaxing in the shade on the porch with some fresh, clean drinking water, NO!

I said people don't die from not having Air Conditioning. They might die from other complications related to heat, but it isn't just from lack of air conditioning. I live in Florida. I've gone weeks without air conditioning. I used to live in Missouri, I used to do Football 2-a-day practices in August, I'm still here.

For that matter-- when is the last time you saw a news-report about the plight (or causes?) of American homeless?

Almost missed this part, LOL! Why do I need a news report? I've worked very closely with the homeless, and I still do from time to time. I don't need some talking head reporter with a corporate agenda to tell me the cause, I'll just ask the homeless thank you. Please don't presume to know more from your magical boob tube, than I know from my actual hands-on experience.

Once again, if you don't believe me, drive down and check it out for yourself.

Damn, poor people are killin it eh? I don't consider myself poor (although I struggle a bit here and there) and I don't use the A/C or buy gaming systems.

Hey, maybe not needing every last gadget that hits the market and turning on the fan is why I'm not on the government teet!?!

I don't know why Americans always complain. You have one of the highest living standard and civil liberties.
Go to Europe especially middle east part of continent to see who the poor is. Or even worse, you can make trip to Bangladesh.
Of course in comparison to those greedy corporational f*cks, everyone is poor. But that's the way corporation socialism work, government by interventionism and protectionism established big monopoles.
Thousands have to earn $500 per week in order that one earn $50 milllions per year.
But that's not only in your country, it's happening everywhere.

reply to post by dolphinfan


What is the OP if not class warfare against the poor?

The rich aren't the mom & pop hard-working wage earners you portray. Those folks might be well-to-do, but not rich. Rich moms don't work for wages, neither to rich dads. In point of fact, most of the truly rich ensure their wages are as low as possible for tax purposes. Their income, as opposed to wages, comes from sheltered investments, gambling in the market, and similar low-tax/no-tax venues.

You seek the cover of verisimilitude by conflating the merely well-to-do with the rich. They aren't the same group.

The rich are those who comprise the top 5-10% of the society that control nearly the entirety of the wealth. The super-rich are thos 385 billionaires.

Can they be brought under control?

Of course they can, but I much prefer my way than the traditional means, and I'm certain most of them would prefer it also. Traditionally in human history when wealth imbalances reach the levels we see today, the wealth is redistributed by beheading, burning, shooting, or hanging the greedy ones; in especially offensive cases, all the above.

You hope that they will be mature enough to self-limit, but when they can't or won't society always, repeat always imposes limits upon them, usually very violently, as I've pointed out.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

And therein lies the problem with why poor people stay poor and rich people stay rich. Do you really believe it is "cheaper" to live off microwave meals than it is to cook something at home?

I'm not agreeing with the rest of your post but I can definitely agree that hunger (and obesity) in America is influenced greatly by bad habits. Reminded me of this:

reply to post by dolphinfan


You honestly have NO IDEA how hard it is to get most of those Government programs. When I had to be on Medicaid, I had to fight for THREE YEARS...AND GO TO COURT just to get it, even though ALL of my doctors were 100% behind me because I am GENUINELY DISABLED....Without a HUGE support group of friends and family I would never have gotten it. Oh and that whole time...I went without regular medical care, or adequate medication. It was perhaps the worst nightmare of my life trying to get it..... Not only that they tried to take it away from me THREE TIMES after I did get it!

Yeah, seriously my friend, I'd advise you to start a dialog with some people going through some of these programs. They are far from 'free'.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by apacheman
A whole lot more of them than you seem to think...there are responsible homeless people who work very hard every day trying not to be homeless. Most of today's homeless are homeless because of the crappy economy, not because they're lazy crazy drunk druggies.

As far as the BLM land goes: most of that land is actually Indian land held "in trust" (yeah, right), and leased to ranchers and mining companies for a few dollars a year, but I get your point.

Land isn't free, cheap, or even available in a lot of places, and the wherewithal necessary to build a house and garden is capital intensive, no matter what anyone thinks.

Sorry if this comes across as mean, but you sound like an excuse maker.

None of those things are necesarily "capital intensive..." more like sweat and smarts intensive. Seriously, I'm no carpenter but even I could build a little cabin pretty quick and cheap (and my garden is doing just great, the seeds were very cheap).

How many people will survive a Maine winter in a cabin they built themselves....quick and cheaply...