Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

reply to post by getreadyalready


Are you serious? Who can get by on $10K? That is what the average single household American makes because the wage hasn't increased since I think 2007! All the while the GDP keeps rising. This is the reason most people can not afford to live on their own. Maybe kids living at home can get by on this but GOD knows I can't.

Just because the US Dept. of Human Health says so it must be because the GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT...

I'm here to tell you Bub I make $22K a yr and raise my daughter on my own and it's not enough...

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

You're right. There will still be a disparity in wealth, but perhaps the disparity will be less apparent. Ideally, I think we need as large of a middle class as possible, and historically the middle class has taken the vocational route. We need to grow the middle class and shrink the top and bottom. We need to rebuild the Bell Curve of wealth distribution.

Welcome to liberalism 101...

So, now the question is, how to do that...not sure cutting the poor off of food stamps because they have a old playstation will somehow accomplish that..however, tariffs, progressive tax rate, and other such liberal ideas at least conceptually deals with that aspect.

There are ways to satisfy the liberal side of having public assistance programs, and still meet the requirements of the conservatives.

**For example, I don't believe in a progressive tax. I think it becomes a bargain for the richest people to pay expensive attorneys and find tax shelters. I believe the tax should be flat for everyone, and it should be free of loopholes. For example a standard deduction of $20k per adult and $10k per dependent child, with everyone paying 15% on all wages above that standard deduction. "Wages" to mean earned income, interest, dividends, and capital gains, but not to include inheritance.

**Also, public cash assistance should be extremely limited and temporary, but housing concessions based upon income should be continue. There should be built in penalties for gaming the system, and there should be penalties and restictions for bad decision making while on assistance. (i.e. drug tests, arrests, convictions, pregnancies, or lying on an application.) If someone truly needs and wants the assistance, they should not be doing drugs, getting pregnant, committing crimes, or lying to get the benefits. Conservatives don't mind giving the assistance to those that need and appreciate it, we only mind giving it to the those who make a career out of it.

**Tariffs, I support. I think "Made in America" should mean value and quality. Tariffs are extremely unpopular, because if we do it, then they do it, and it hurts our exports, but I don't care. I believe our focus should be at home, not in selling quality stuff to the Chinese, and buying crappy stuff in return.

There are plenty of areas where a liberal agenda can be tweaked to satisfy the Conservatives in the population.

reply to post by apacheman


That is the entire point of the thread. Who exactly is poor? Unless we identify who qualifies for what and under what circumstances they qualify, we will never be able to target our resources towards solving the problems of the truly needy in society.

Like any problem, this can not be understood unless understanding the facts. Lets get an accurate description of what it means to be poor and have some requirements leveled on those who receive assistance and get to the root of the issue.

With respect to the poor, why do we consider everyone in a certain income level the same? They are not. There are folks who need opportunity who have a demonstrated track record of achievement, such as yourself who deserves more than someone who is not interested in making a contribution to society. People are different, yet it becomes impolite to suggest that they are. The fashionable term is "making an investment in people". Well some folks are better investments than others and in many cases that can be quantified and if it can be quantified than our "investment" decisions should be targeted appropriately.

As far as creating jobs go, you are absolutely correct in that there are jobs that need to be completed and investments that need to be made within the society that could put millions of folks to work, but the government is not really interested in solving problems, but rather sustaining the status quo. My father grew up during the depression. When he was a boy he carried buckets of water to gents who were working on WPA projects for them to drink. The workers paid him. When he got older he worked on the projects. He accomplished a lot in his life, but the library he built as a young man is the thing (other than his family) that he is most proud of. I've heard him 100+ times tell folks that he helped build that library.

Those were days when there was vision and public works were things that made people proud and united communities. Why isn't the government puttling thousands of folks to work to rebuild Joplin, MO? Because they would rather toss money down the current toilet which is their set of priorities. It is absolutely inexcusable that thousands of tradesman were not created, let alone employeed in the rebuilding of New Orleans. What do great people do? They turn defeat into a victory. What happens after the Trade Centers are taken down? We spend 10 years jacking around looking incompetent when that new building should have been up in two years to flip off those who hate our country. In the same week they announce large layoffs in Chicago what do they do? They unveil a huge statue of Marilyn Monroe. That is a perfect example of the feel good nonsense that the government engages in. This country has become incapable of doing anything great.

This entire budget deadlock is a joke. Were you to put the entire federal budget in front of 250 average folks and asked them to cut the fat they would be able to pare $100s of billions out of it in a matter of weeks. The folly is that we all know they could. Why is our government unable to do what everyone in this thread has done repeatedly throughout their lives and make pragmatic decisions based on priorities?

In order to do that you need to understand the details and that includes understanding the details about what constitutes poverty.

reply to post by dolphinfan


These aren't exactly hard to come buy. There are poor people whom can get these things cheaply and elsewhere from wealthy friends.

Simple fact is, Poverty in this day and age is not being able to pay the bills. Admittedly that means you should not buy those things, but the fact is that's what poverty really is these days.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Wow I'm not even as well off as the poor and I am American. I dont have a/c our house is 100 years old and my washer doesnt spin out all the way and the dryer is dead, just a place to stack the cloths.

reply to post by Maxmars
Yep, back in 1930's Germany, they came for the disabled and other "least of these" first. Those who could least defend themselves were part of what was dragging worthwhile people down.

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


I don't believe a person can maintain a household and raise a child on $22k. Kudos to you for trying. If you read my earlier story, I had to do it for awhile with 2 kids and a wife on $24k! I know it is next to impossible to do!

But by the same token, a single person making $30k is not poor. They might think they are poor, but they are not poor.

In reality, neither one should be living on their own. They should be combining resources with friends or family and raising everyone's standard of living.

reply to post by haarvik


I am sell on both those sites and it's still not enough... and when I was young I worked for $4.25 an hr @ 30 hrs a week... but I WAS LIVING WITH MY MOM. So you want to put a label on things I guess you can call it financial hardship due to the lack of reality from past generations...

Is that better?

What a joke.

First of all, having a color TV isn't anything special. This isn't the 50s. There are 19-32" COLOR CRT TVs for FREE on craigslist all the time.

An X-Box or Playstation isn't really worth anything either, again I've seen them on craigslist for 20 bucks, with games and controllers.

Computers, again, can be had free or dirt cheap. I doubt these people are playing on top-of-the-line alienware gaming PCs or anything.

Cable? I'll give you that. If you are getting any sort of government aid, then you shouldn't have cable, because you obviously have enough money for food, if you can pay for crappy TV service.

Cellphones.... you can get them for like 15 bucks, with pre-paid service. In addition to that, every single job I've ever had REQUIRED you to have your own cell phone. I doubt these people are going around with 4g iPhones.

Prepares meals in the kitchen? Yeah? What does this even mean? Are poor people supposed to eat out all the time? Making your own food is cheaper than eating out, you know. So this one is just silly to even point out.

Non-portable stereo, again dirt cheap or even free.

People who live without a lot of money are used to shopping smart. I could get you a big screen TV, stereo, x-box, and cell phone, ALL for under $100 together.

They don't go out to Magnolia Hi-Fi and buy plasmas and ten thousand dollar stereos. All of these "fancy" pieces of equipment they have are most likely cheap stuff they bought off craigslist, goodwill, or garage sales.

As far as the medical part, I don't believe that for one minute. By meting their medical needs, they probably mean NOBODY GOES TO THE DOCTORS EVER because they can't afford it. Yeah, you can afford medical care if you NEVER GET IT.

Just more division tactics. Look at those awful poor people, we're mad at them because they are able to provide their families with some of the little luxuries in life without spending an arm and a leg and getting ripped off like we do when we buy brand new electronics at 150% over retail because it makes us feel superior.

Not to mention not all poor people were always dirt poor. If they have a house, odds are they used to be getting by decently. It was then they purchased things like a fridge, washer &dryer, etc. What do you want them to do? Sell all this stuff? Because it makes more sense to sell your washer and dryer, then pay a bunch of money to go to a laundromat. Yeah, sell your fridge too so that you can't keep any food in the house, and you have to eat out all the time and spend more money. Give me a break.

Keep buying into it.

I totally agree that our educational system needs to be retooled and rebuilt. It isn't everyones destiny to earn a BA. As you say some are better suited for vocational routes.

Gee... not to get too 70's... and shove the dead and buried ERA amendment down anybody's throat around here... but I sure do wish guys hadn't had this subconscious need to stomp every women down into the dirt with heavy lead boots everytime one attempted to enter their typically male dominated vocation.

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

Ok, let me answer this as best I can.
Thrift stores can't hardly give low def tvs away. I don't think that's an indicator of wealth..
Basic cable here is 10.00 a month. Is that an indicator of wealth? Do we want our poor - a huge percentage of our population - ignorant?

cell phones? If you are poor, you get your CELL phone from the govt. They have a program for that.

Nonportable stereo? Again, I have seen these sit for 10.00 at the thrift store for WEEKS. They can't hardly sell them for just a little bit.

PC and Internet service - Personally I find it cheaper to keep pc and internet service than land line. That's because I can sell a bit on ebay and half so they pay for themselves.. You also need them these days to look for JOBS and access services

You don't say WHICH video gaming system. Again, older systems are often found for just a bit at yardsales and thrifts. Some old systems do not sell well even for a few bucks. Many are considered worthless by the general population.

So forgive me, I am not impressed by how good the poor have it.

Perhaps that is because one night I was at cvs at 3 am. I had insomnia so I went shopping. Suddenly the store was FULL of people buying chips, cereal, milk, and soup. I asked a stock boy what was going on. He said food stamps had just got posted and folks were really hungry and they were the only 24/7 place that sold groceries that took ecbs. Said it was always like that when food stamps were posted.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Not all people who are poor are getting any handouts. The limits for income to recieve any assistance is so high that a family with two incomes wont qualify but their income is such that they live hand to mouth.

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


Call it what you want, it's a free? country. As long as we have TV and internet that can beam to us the stories of the wealthy and affluent, there will ALWAYS be those who sit back and say "dang, I am so poor because I can't buy that". Take solace in the fact that when everything collapses, you have been trained how to survive while those in the ivory tower will fall far below you. History is full of our scenario. It never goes away, it never changes. It is an argument as old as man. There will always be poor, there will always be affluent. It is our nature to want to be equal with our peers, yet we are not created in the same way and can never be equal. It's our Achilles heel. Posting on forums and voting for who you think will distribute the wealth the best is an illusion. It never gets spread and never has.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
There are plenty of areas where a liberal agenda can be tweaked to satisfy the Conservatives in the population.

I have some issues with some of your stuff (the flat rate won't work...someone making 10m a year will still take home 7m a year and not suffer at all, someone making 10k a year taking home 7k a year will suffer greatly from that hit..and for what? fairness over logic?

But, I disgress...its a starting point anyhow, a flat tax above a certain amount I have no objection with so long as social programs are enacted to compensate for the monies lost for lower income...aka, someone making 25k a year that loses 30% (lets say) will still be alright in regards of the basics, but no chance in hell of having health insurance...probably would be barely floating by with car insurance...so such extra life needs should be taken care of...

Whats missing is the discussion of rational needs verses wants...a person needs a place to live, a bit of food, and preventitive health care (a day visit to take care of a chem imbalance is far cheaper on the state to pay than full blown cancer years later because they couldn't afford the initial tests to signal a potential problem)

But your statement I quoted made me chuckle. the political propaganda is at such an extent that if you said that while trying to run for office, your base would crusify and toss you to the street...we are at an extent now of no retreat, no compromise, no surrender...and that is sad.

I think the first thing that needs to change is our media and how it reports politics...without that, then we will always see politics as a sports game verses a discussion of concerns and use of wisdom....we have traded in plato and socrates for big number 1 gloves and jerseys screaming our favorite political players in hopes they "win".

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz

 

I don't believe a person can maintain a household and raise a child on $22k. Kudos to you for trying. If you read my earlier story, I had to do it for awhile with 2 kids and a wife on $24k! I know it is next to impossible to do!

But by the same token, a single person making $30k is not poor. They might think they are poor, but they are not poor.

In reality, neither one should be living on their own. They should be combining resources with friends or family and raising everyone's standard of living.

Really? No one should be living on their own? Try telling that to her mother that walked out on us 3 yrs ago...

Like I said before... just because the government says $10K is poor doesn't mean it's actual fact. It's really a gross understatement to confuse the weak minded into believing that so they can continue to manipulate. I'm sure I do not have to preach to anyone on here about the greed that controls everything. The Machine that will never die... so to speak...

I have my mom and no one else... I do what I can to make sure my daughter does not EVER see how tough things are. I refuse to steal her innocence. Hell I wish I still had mine...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by vkey08

 

Figures: it was approximately 1 out of 5 that I had that was a family just trying to keep safe from the elements, still working etc.

My capacity was in trying to employ the homeless. Offering them small huts/cabins and construction or handyman work. We would visit the homeless shelters and homeless camps and offer room and board + pay for work. It was rare for us to find people willing to work. When we did find anyone willing to work, they usually wandered off in a day or two. We had one (1) very good success story. We had a handful of temporary success stories, and we had a whole lot of frustration. Maybe I am jaded as well.

What we didn't ever see was a family, in a shelter, willing to work.

I wonder.....the working families that you saw, were they long term residents in the shelter, or was it just a few nights of transition between other arrangements? I'm sure you became intimately connected with your regular residents. Were there families that were regular residents?

We had 4 or 5 families that were long term shelter residents (meaning longer than one year) most were there for under 6 months while arrangements could be made. There were none there for just a few nights though, it was always more than 3 months. I think the worst case I ever came across (and I applaud the mother and father for trying) was the family that set up a huge tent in the woods, had a fridge generator radio water pump (with barrels of water) water heater etc etc, DCF was trying to say that they were not providing, there was plenty of food, hot and cold running water, a gravity toilet but it wasn't enough. So families are less likely to report to shelters etc when they need help for fear of DCF.

Originally posted by dolphinfan

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.

(A) Class warfare at it's ugliest courtessy of the Koch Brothers who fund the Heritage Foundation.

The Koch Brothers are the lovely folks who would like you to believe that your local grade school teacher, local fireman or civil servant is a socialist secretly living in a mansion and driving a ferrari on your taxpayer dollars.

(B) Cable companies routinely provide Free Basic Cable television to public housing and even in many well-to-do communities you can request and receive free (slimmed down) basic cable access. It is part of the agreement that Cable companies make with state and city officials to install infra-structure and cables on public property.

(C) Cell phone plans are less expensive than land lines. You can even buy them in gas stations throughout the US. For someone in bad economic circumstances uncertain of where they will live in the comming months or years, a cell phone makes sense and people looking for work need to be reachable.

I am not Christain, but I do kind of hope that there is a God of the bible because if there is the Koch Brothers have a very special place reserved in hell waiting for their well orchestrated propaganda war on the poor and middle class working man.

The propagnada has worked quite well hasn't it?

This entire thread has everyone arguing whether people "deserve" what they have...
Did they work for what they have?
Is someone who takes advantage of social safety nets a lazy bum? blah blah blah

I don't think anyone on this forum has yet to admit that they fall into the Rich catagory, so all we have is poor people fighting with other poor people about $5,000 to $10,000 differences in wages and who falls into the poverty catagory!

Well congratulations! Most of you are bickering over an imaginary wage marker that tells you whether you're poor or not! If you are not a corporate man, or a hedge fund manager, you are fricken' poor! Some of you have even been on some sort of SOCIAL assistance and can justify it just fine, but someone else uses that same assistance and they must be lazy bums!

I love articles like this because it shows how the income desparity is at an all-time high, and how they can get the poor people to fight against other poor people on behalf of the rich. Suckers!

I also find it funny that this entire argument is based on what these people pay in federal income taxes, but the big amounts add up in day to day sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc. Poor people, no matter what you naysayers think, pay a lot of money in taxes! Yet the very wealthy people I happen to know are very intelligent and find ways out of paying large amounts of federal income taxes, and they roll their personal property taxes and state taxes into business expenses.

So I disagree with the notion that the wealthy pay most the taxes. In fact, I call shenanigans on that one!

edit to add:

We need to start working together folks! Crap like this only serves to divide an enslave!

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz

 

Call it what you want, it's a free? country. As long as we have TV and internet that can beam to us the stories of the wealthy and affluent, there will ALWAYS be those who sit back and say "dang, I am so poor because I can't buy that". Take solace in the fact that when everything collapses, you have been trained how to survive while those in the ivory tower will fall far below you. History is full of our scenario. It never goes away, it never changes. It is an argument as old as man. There will always be poor, there will always be affluent. It is our nature to want to be equal with our peers, yet we are not created in the same way and can never be equal. It's our Achilles heel. Posting on forums and voting for who you think will distribute the wealth the best is an illusion. It never gets spread and never has.

Agreed... but I never say I'm so poor I can't buy that because I make my choices off of needs... not wants...

Oh when shall those Ivory towers fall...

Free? I loved that one...

reply to post by Misoir


Sooooo, basically, you are kicking poverty's butt??? I think the OP again is pointing out that the people living below the poverty line in the US are very blessed. Your post is proof. You have all those amenities including luxuries like cable and internet AND you're getting a higher education. Sounds like this is the American dream. Cogratulations by the way and good luck with school!