What's wrong with this definition?

[LT Garrix]

The Specter of Poverty in America
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
By Robert Rector

Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.

It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.

Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.

Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.

Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers — to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.


For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's 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.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.

— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

— 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.

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.

Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.

To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.

Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.



link

Okay, I assume that I'm not the only one who also thought that poverty meant living without luxuries, barely able to put food on the table, but I guess I was wrong. It means only 2 TVs, probably no cable internet, and one car.

Personally I want to know how many don't have transportation, trouble paying for the basic utilities of water, sewer, electric and trash, not cable. How many have a hard time putting food on the table. How many have to walk or take the bus to work because they have no car or the 10+ year old thing has broken down again. How many suffer through hot summers with nothing more than a fan. How many can't afford child care and thus can't work. These are the people who I see as living in poverty.

Now I realize this is a hard thing to define. There are parts of the country where people can live on $900 a month. That won't even pay the rent and utilities here, let alone food. Heck someone making $30,000 a year would probably be living from paycheck to paycheck here while other places that's a right decent wage.

In order to solve a problem you need to have a viable, if complex definition of the problem.

[FrelledProwler]

riddle me this batman, why do prisoners get cable tv?

[mfa96]

Methinks this is going to be a shaky thread to say the least... as this is a view from one side of the political spectrum....

Here's their mission statement:

"Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

http://www.heritage.org/about/

Play nice folks....

[stellar]

The American poor aren't cave people, they're just the impoverished segment of a very wealthy society. The king of Zaire would probably kill to be poor in America, but the way the statistics are used in this story make it seem that poverty isn't that bad - it is.

I tend to agree that poverty isn't a great economic indicator. Better indicators are unemployment, people who have left the job market, GDP, inflation, etc.

Poverty sucks, I'd like to see all the afluent people, who think poverty ain't that bad, try it on for size for a while.

[LT Garrix]

I wasn't trying to start a big political debate, I'm just wondering what's up with the definition of poor. I think our country needs to rethink that. From what I see above it doesn't seem to be based on mixture of income and cost of living, but just income.

And FP, I'm with you on cable in jail. As far as living conditions, many jails are nicer than poor neighborhoods the inmates came from. People in jail have cable TV, climate control, 3 squares a day, gyms, vocational training (okay, I'll give the last one as a key to stopping the cycle of crime). One of the things I liked about my high school was that they had a vocational track for those that had no college aspirations. These students could apprentice in work study programs from carpentry, to metal working, to framing/animal husbandry (nothing like cows in the parking lot) to automotive repair to help them succeed in life. Now there are the lazy ones who just kind of sluff their way through school and chose to get nothing out of it, but it wasn't for lack of opportunity.

[BrowderChick]

The city where I live right now has a mix of what could be classified as rich and poor. But its hard to determine the difference. The neighborhoods are so contrasted. There are slum houses in rich neighborhoods. But you go to the "gut" of the city where the houses are litterally falling down or are already boarded up and inside you will find the best of the best. My sister came here from CO battered and bruised and wanted help finding a place to live. She had a minimal part time job to start out with but wanted to get a little help getting into housing with a studio apt. Thats all she asked for help with. You know they told her that there is a homelss shelter down the street. BUT....... The next person in line for help was wearing clothes that even I could not afford to dreaming of having, jewelry dripping off her, and driving a brand new car. She is turn got full welfare and housing. But thats welfare. On to unemployment. I lost my job to a business closing. For me to be able to collect my first check I had to cover at least 2 job interviews that week. And if I refused those that were offered, I lose benefits. Well the jobs they sent me to were lowlife gut jobs that of course I would refuse. So now I lose benefits. I dont understand it. The ones that need the help dont get any but the ones that are out right obvious that dont need it get the world at their feet. I was classified as disabled to currently work for about a month. Thats all I needed help for. Not a big deal. But I was refused. I guess thats NY for ya. Just another reason to move out of here.

Im not trying to start a political argument as you know I dont do that but I needed to rant that out.

[zap]

Well, for my area, I make above average salary, with benefits (healthcare, paid time off, etc) however, my car broke down in July, I can not afford to replace it, so I car pool, take the bus, and walk. I'm getting ready to move into a much nicer place, its bigger, but the rent is less. Even though I have this decent job, no kids, and moderate debt, I've still had more than a few months of not only paycheck to paycheck, but also not a bit of food in the house for a few days. Even so, I know I'm not poor.

[grinner]

Poverty = Class Struggle

[Selena]

If I consider my own circumstances in the community in which I live - I would be classified as a midldle income earner. But my middle income is not buying what it used to.
I do have a house (it still belongs to the bank) and it is barely 1100 sq ft, where as everyone else in my community have homes that are over 17,000 sq ft. Most homes and families around me have 2 or even 3 late model cars - mine is almost 9 years old.
Yes, I do have satellite TV but I have the basic package and not the one with HBO and all the other "must have" networks. I have a refrigerator, a washing machine and dryer and a dishwasher and a microwave all of which are over 7 years old.
My computer is almost 3 years old and I only bought it because my other one was 7 years old and was no longer working.
I do have a cell phone but it's the basic plan with no bells and whistles.
I do not go out to sporting events or shows and I rarely take in a movie. I do eat out once a week with a friend but the meal rarely comes to more than $12 with the tip included.
I don't buy fancy clothes, (can't afford the ones I like) I only subscribe to 1 magazine and I take vacations on a shoestring budget and take them as part of some event in which I'm participating.
I do splurge on my grandchildren especially for their birthdays and for Christmas as I rationalize it as my way of staying in touch becuase I can't afford to fly to Australia to visit them.
So why do I find it difficult to make ends meet?
I have worked for the same employer for almost 9 years and have not had a pay increase in over 4 years. In that time everything has gone up. My insurance has risen by over 40% in the last 2 years due to natural disasters. It used to cost me $10 to fill my gas tank and get to work each week - now I'm paying $25. My medical insurance has gone up, this year I have spent over $700 on prescriptions and I still haven't met my $500 deductible (cause Blue Cross took one of my medications off thier list). I struggle to pay my utilities and other bills which have all risen by at least 15% over the last 2 years. A trip to the grocery store is rarely under $100 and I'm not buying luxuries. I do know that the balance in my bank account I used to have with a few dollars tucked away for a rainy day is getting less and less instead of getting more. My pension plan was almost wiped out with the stock market crash and I face only a few more years of employment before I am supposed to retire. That prospect makes me feel very bleak indeed.

Am I poor? I guess in my own eyes I feel poor, but to some people I would be considered incredibly wealthy.

So is poverty relative????

[Kathleen]

Three years ago, my husband and I filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. It was dismissed by the courts when they wanted to take over $300 a WEEK out of our paychecks. At the time, my husband was the only one working while I stayed at home to raise our son.

January of last year (2003), we moved to Louisiana. I got a job and so did my husband. I work 6, sometimes 7, days a week. My husband works 5 days a week. I make $6.50/hour and he makes $8.00/hour. We bring home, after taxes, about $500 week. That's if neither of us has to miss a day of work or take off earlyl from work. I do occasionally get extra money for doing extra work, but it's not very often. Around Christmas is when it saves us. So we make due on about $30,000 a year. We have been married for 9 years and we still rent a house because we haven't been able to afford one of our own. I drive an '88 model car and he has a '92 model truck. They're both beat up and need constant maintenance, but it's all we have. We scrape to put food on the table for us, but my son is GUARANTEED to eat well each and every single day that he draws breath. The only government help we get is a Medicaid card for my son. Neither one of our jobs has an insurance program, so if we get sick, it comes out of pocket.

Now, what pisses me off? It's when I see these people out there getting THOUSANDS of dollars a month in welfare just so they can drop more babies into this overcrowded world. They drive brand new, loaded to the hilt vehicles, but live in a one or two-bedroom shack. Then they have the gall to sit there and tell me that I OWE them. No. I don't owe them jack sh*t. I work my ass off each and every day, month after month, manage to stay OFF of welfare, barely eek out a living, but my bills are paid and my baby boy is taken care of.

I am poor, financially, but I am rich beyond measure in so many other things. So, yes, I think poor is "relative".

[mgraylorn]

the Heritage article is an updated version. For a rebuttal on the earlier version see here: http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/rector.html



January/February 1999
The Ever-Present Yet Nonexistent Poor


For Heritage's poverty expert, numbers mean what he says they mean
By Seth Ackerman

As a poverty specialist for the conservative Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector is one of the right-wing media machine's most prolific pundits. In 1996, the year of the welfare reform debate, he was cited in media outlets an average of more than 15 times a month (Nexis). Rector also feeds a vast network of right-wing talkshow hosts and syndicated columnists who pick up and broadcast his findings. Yet for all his influence, Rector's work is a mess of misleading statistics and specious arguments all contrived to accomplish a single goal: to cut spending on the poor.

In 1995, Rector testified before Congress that "since the onset of the War on Poverty, the U.S. has spent over $5.3 trillion on welfare. But during the same period, the official poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged." Rector's figure--which he soon updated to $5.4 trillion--is grossly misleading: It includes huge amounts of spending not directed towards families on welfare.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that approximately 70 percent of the federal spending that Rector classified as "welfare" went to households that did not receive Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the core welfare program in recent decades. Instead, most of the money went to non-AFDC households with elderly, disabled or "medically needy" individuals, as well as students and low-income workers--not groups most people would associate with "welfare."

Even if Rector's $5.4 trillion figure were accurate, it would need to be put in perspective. Spending on "national defense" since 1964 overshadows even Rector's inflated "welfare" number, exceeding $8 trillion at the time of Rector's testimony--and that figure does not include spending on intelligence, foreign military aid and other military-related items.

Despite its flimsiness, Rector's charge echoed through the media. The Los Angeles Times published a column by Rector (7/11/95) making the $5.4 trillion claim. He repeated the figure on a PBS NewsHour panel (12/26/95). Tony Snow picked it up in a column in USA Today (9/25/95) and Linda Bowles published it in a Chicago Tribune column (7/31/96). Syndicated columnist Walter Williams then placed it in the Cincinnati Enquirer (11/26/95) and Dallas Morning News (12/9/95), among other papers. The figure reappeared in the Arizona Republic this year in a news article about welfare fraud (4/19/98).

Erasing Hunger

Despite his 1995 claim before Congress that 30 years of welfare spending had not reduced poverty, Rector has at the same time argued for years that poverty has fallen so steeply since the War on Poverty that virtually no one in America today is really poor (see Footnote*). This argument was enunciated by Rector in a 1990 Heritage Foundation "Backgrounder" titled "How 'Poor' Are America's Poor?" and Rector has updated the paper several times since then--always around the September release of the Census Bureau's annual poverty report. Rector's report is given a different name each time it's released--this year's version was called "The Myth of Widespread American Poverty"--but the content is virtually identical from one year to the next.

Rector writes in the 1998 report that "despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the poor report their families have 'enough' food to eat; 13 percent state they 'sometimes' do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they 'often' do not have enough to eat." But his figures are taken from the "food sufficiency" portion of the 1988-1991 Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, which is considered by many researchers to be an inadequate measure of hunger. He fails to mention in his report the authoritative 1995 Food Security Survey, performed by the Census Bureau on behalf of the USDA, which was designed to improve upon the old "food sufficiency" measure.

The Census study found that in addition to the 14 percent of poor individuals found to be hungry that year, another 25 percent of the poor were classified as "food insecure." That means those households had a "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways." For example, 81 percent of respondents in households classified as "food insecure" said that sometimes in the past 12 months the food that they bought "just didn't last" and they "didn't have money to get more." 63 percent said they could sometimes provide "only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed the children" because they "were running out of money to buy food."

Nationwide, 13.8 percent of Americans, poor and non-poor, were either hungry or food insecure--a number identical to the 13.8 percent poverty rate that year. In other words, while it is true that not every person counted as officially poor lacked food, for every officially poor person who didn't lack food, another (officially "non-poor") person did.

Curiously, despite his omission of the Census Bureau's more recent findings, Rector was not unaware of them; he refers to the Census Bureau's study in a footnote. One can only wonder how Rector happened to come across the newer report while leaving out its salient findings.

The Wealthy Poor

Rector makes much of the fact that many poor people own cars. "Seventy percent of 'poor' households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars." But Rector does not stop to consider that many of these households might need cars to get to their jobs. In fact, the 69.7 percent of poor households that Rector reports as having one or more cars in 1995 roughly mirrors the 61.4 percent of poor households with one or more workers in that year.

Rector has claimed that "poor Americans live in larger houses or apartments" than "the general population in Western Europe." Presumably as evidence of this assertion, he included in this year's report a chart titled "International Comparison of Living Space." However, what the chart actually compares is the average floor space per person in certain European cities, such as Paris and Athens, with the average floor space in all poor U.S. households--22 percent of whom live in rural areas and 33 percent of whom live in suburbs. (Even with such an egregious bias, his numbers are underwhelming: The mostly rural and suburban homes of the U.S. poor are only about one-fourth larger than the average home in notoriously crowded Paris.)

The intent of Rector's dubious number-crunching was to make his point that "there is a huge gap between the 'poor' as defined by the Census Bureau and what most ordinary Americans consider to be poverty." He was more right than he knew. That same year, the National Opinion Research Center conducted a poll of "ordinary Americans" asking the question: "What amount of weekly income would you use as a poverty line for a family of four (husband, wife and two children) in this community?" The official poverty line for such a family that year was $14,654 a year, or $282 weekly. Sixty-four percent of respondents suggested a figure greater than $282.

The following year, the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes conducted a poll in which respondents were told the current poverty line and asked whether they thought the line should be "set higher, set lower, or kept about the same." Fifty-eight percent said the poverty line should be higher and 32 percent said it should be kept about the same. Only 7 percent said it should be lower. The respondents who thought the poverty line should be changed suggested an average level of $19,400--more than $4,600 higher than the actual level that year. (Given the percentage of "non-poor" people who have trouble buying enough food, this seems like a more realistic standard.)

All these flaws did not keep Rector's poverty "research" from being taken seriously by various media outlets--not just by Rush Limbaugh (9/25/98). His most recent paper prompted a news article in the Atlanta Journal & Constitution (9/25/98) and columns in such papers as the Kansas City Star (9/26/98), Christian Science Monitor (10/7/98) and Chicago Tribune (11/25/98).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FOOTNOTE:] * Rector tries to reconcile these arguments by cautioning that "higher material living standards should not be regarded as a victory for the War on Poverty. Living conditions were improving dramatically and poverty was dropping sharply long before the War on Poverty began." But if these "dramatically" improved living conditions did not come from government programs, where had they come from? Certainly not from an improved job market; in January 1995, when Rector presented his testimony to Congress, jobs were neither better-paying nor more plentiful than they had been two decades earlier. The unemployment rate was a half-point higher than in 1973 and real hourly wages for the bottom tenth of workers were 12 percent lower.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think Tank Monitor is a joint project of FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy.


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

[LT Garrix]

JMO but I don't think we can have a national definition of poverty. It's just easier statistically to do that, but not realistic. There cannot be an effective war on poverty until it is effectively defined. I also think that what some have posted proves that this country needs some serious health care reform. How many people have been thrust into the world of poverty by the health care system? If you need one serious medical procedure and you will be tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

Like any other statistic, it can be manipulated to make whatever point you want by strategic omission.

[Selena]

What made my blood boil earlier this year was a letter from the COO (Chief Operations Officer) of Human Resources (who is drawing a 6 figure salary and has a late model car thrown in as one of his perks). He wrote the staff a letter saying that the management team had deferred raises for 12 months and that meant that none of them would be getting a pay rise for 2 years. Like that was a huge hardship for him.

About 20% of our staff are on just above minimum wage - most earn only $6.50/hour.
In the last 2 years we've had to watch as they cut vital staff from the payroll and padded the upper management team, with trips away to luxury hotels for their business meetings.
When we have a meeting we stand at the back of a crowded room for an hour or more as there are never enough chairs that all of us can sit down.
Only 2 months ago, they cut another 50 employees from the payroll - most of them from the nursing department which they then replaced with (minimally educated, unlicensed) patient care assistants who are paid $8/hour as opposed to the college educated nurses who are on $18/hr.
And people in this country wonder why their medical bills are so high and the care they receive so poor in comparison to what they should be getting for their dollars.
Most Americans should be pounding their fists and demanding answers.

[LT Garrix]

Not to totally defend the high price of health care, but our litigious society has done it's bit. Hospitals and doctors are forced to pay a lot for insurance to cover the inevitable lawsuit. I have a lot of respect for those in the general practice and emergency medicines fields. These people are hard working and generally not getting rich. It's the specialists that make out like bandits.

Of course, there are those like Selena described that make horrible decisions that can jeopardize patient care while still making some pretty big salaries with some pretty big perks.

[zap]

SNIP

Now, what pisses me off? It's when I see these people out there getting THOUSANDS of dollars a month in welfare just so they can drop more babies into this overcrowded world. They drive brand new, loaded to the hilt vehicles, but live in a one or two-bedroom shack. Then they have the gall to sit there and tell me that I OWE them. No. I don't owe them jack sh*t. I work my ass off each and every day, month after month, manage to stay OFF of welfare, barely eek out a living, but my bills are paid and my baby boy is taken care of.

I am poor, financially, but I am rich beyond measure in so many other things. So, yes, I think poor is "relative".

Kathleen, I hear how tough it is for you and your family! I would assume some months must be scary for yall, and missing a day of work sounds out of the question. I wish yall luck.

Now, I picked part of your statement out because I've got a question. Probably not specifically for you Kathleen, but rather to folks that would also say that. I've never seen anything like that. The only time Ive ever seen anything similar was when Ol Dirty Bastard (the rapper) pulled up in a limo and got his food stamps on MTV. Other than that stunt, I've not seen anyone soaking up anything. If anything, I've seen the opposite, I've seen people, women with children desperate for a job paying more than 6 bucks an hour so they can feed, clothe, and educate their children. Don't get me wrong. I was having a discussion with some friends of mine recently, about beggars. I said that when I can, I give beggars a bag of groceries, even though I know they want cash for alcohol or other drugs. A friend of mine related a story of a beggar who conned him out of ten dollars for a bus fare, yet two weeks later the beggar was still in the same place, still asking for that cash for a bus fare. I know there are scammers and cheaters out there. I know there are some lazy sumbishes, but I would rather live in a society that did provide some welfare, as opposed to none. I also would rather live in a world where all businesses paid a living wage (worldwide, not just here, but ESPECIALLY here ok, I live here) to their workers........and if wishes were dishes..........

[zap]

Not to totally defend the high price of health care, but our litigious society has done it's bit. Hospitals and doctors are forced to pay a lot for insurance to cover the inevitable lawsuit. I have a lot of respect for those in the general practice and emergency medicines fields. These people are hard working and generally not getting rich. It's the specialists that make out like bandits.

Of course, there are those like Selena described that make horrible decisions that can jeopardize patient care while still making some pretty big salaries with some pretty big perks.

I both work in health care and have some experience with medical litigation. I cringe every time I hear someone say that it's a "good idea" to cap the amout of awards in medical lawsuits. I know everyone just sees a greedy lawyer getting paid, but that lawyer is there because someone was maimed in the hospital, or died due to doctor negligence (as is what happened to my father). I think it would be much more helpful to place the cap on lawyer fees, but its so much easier to legislate against the victims instead of all the money makers

[Kathleen]

In my case, I am in truly "I'm screwed" situation. I can not ever.. EVER.. get health insurance......... Well, unless I get on some group plan through another employee. I'm not planning on leaving my current job, so I get to pay outrageous medical bills.

Why can't I get health insurance? Simple. I had brain surgery in 1995. That's all it takes. There isn't an insurance company ANYWHERE that will insure me --- even with major riders. It doesn't matter what happens to me. I fall and break my leg? "Oh, it was the brain surgery she had almost 10 years ago that caused her to fall and break her leg." Request denied.

I know it sounds like I'm exxagerating, but I'm not. I wish I were! Whether this Rector guy knows what he's talking about or not, there is truth in at least part of what he says. Of course, that is from my own perspective and my own opinion.

[Kathleen]

Kathleen, I hear how tough it is for you and your family! I would assume some months must be scary for yall, and missing a day of work sounds out of the question. I wish yall luck.

Now, I picked part of your statement out because I've got a question. Probably not specifically for you Kathleen, but rather to folks that would also say that. I've never seen anything like that. The only time Ive ever seen anything similar was when Ol Dirty Bastard (the rapper) pulled up in a limo and got his food stamps on MTV. Other than that stunt, I've not seen anyone soaking up anything. If anything, I've seen the opposite, I've seen people, women with children desperate for a job paying more than 6 bucks an hour so they can feed, clothe, and educate their children. Don't get me wrong. I was having a discussion with some friends of mine recently, about beggars. I said that when I can, I give beggars a bag of groceries, even though I know they want cash for alcohol or other drugs. A friend of mine related a story of a beggar who conned him out of ten dollars for a bus fare, yet two weeks later the beggar was still in the same place, still asking for that cash for a bus fare. I know there are scammers and cheaters out there. I know there are some lazy sumbishes, but I would rather live in a society that did provide some welfare, as opposed to none. I also would rather live in a world where all businesses paid a living wage (worldwide, not just here, but ESPECIALLY here ok, I live here) to their workers........and if wishes were dishes..........

Thanks for the well wishes, zap. We make it. It's hard but we make it.

As to the other things you said, I have experienced it firsthand. I was trying to get help a couple of years ago. We couldn't afford to buy groceries, but they said we "made too much money". It took several days to get through all the paperwork. In those few days, I saw three different women come in with the SAME six children. For each woman, these SAME children had different names and different social security numbers. I found out later from a friend who works in that office that the women were swapping the kids so that each of them could get extra money off their welfare. I asked her if they had gone back and taken away their welfare rights. She told me that they couldn't because each woman had what "appeared to be" valid identification for the children. It's not right, but it DID happen. Oh, and I saw the vehicles these women were driving. One was driving an Escalade and the other two were driving brand new Cadillacs. Yet they were too poor to afford proper food, clothing and healthcare for their kids --- that weren't really their kids.... It's abuse like this that really hacks me off, and it happens way too often where I live.

[LT Garrix]

(((((Kathleen))))) I know what you mean. One of my coworkers has a non-cancerous tumor and had hoped to be able to get some sort of supplemental insurance to help take care of his infant son, but he can't. Right now he is still employed by the Navy and it is unlikely he will be medically discharged, but if he is, he will run into the same problems you have.

The US health care system is broke and getting worse. More and more people can't afford insurance. When these people get sick or injured the hospitals are forced to eat the cost of their care because they won't/can't just let soemone die. So, hospitals are forced to raise prices as the fully/partially insured still cover the cost of care for the uninsured, causing more people to not be able to afford adequate insurance.

This country truly sucks at providing preventative medicine. I would be interested in learning the percentage of the population that does not receive regular care, but only emergency care when they are so sick their care will cost thousands rather than the hundreds of dollars it would have cost had they been able to see a doctor when the symptoms first appeared.

This is one of the reasons I want to stay in the military. I have a pretty good health plan.

[Kathleen]

Lt Garrix ...

Let me put a very miniscule part of it into perspective for you. I have chronic migraines, as a result of my surgery. I don't always know when I"m going to be hit by one. When I do get one that sneaks up on me and slams me into the floor, I have no choice but to go to the emergency room. One visit.. ONE visit... costs me approximately $700. With no insurance, and several of these visits per year, despite medication I"m currently on, I have sh*t credit because of the ungodly amounts I owe in past medical bills. They will probably never be paid off ... unless I hit the powerball or something.

[sny]

And FP, I'm with you on cable in jail. As far as living conditions, many jails are nicer than poor neighborhoods the inmates came from. People in jail have cable TV, climate control, 3 squares a day, gyms, vocational training (okay, I'll give the last one as a key to stopping the cycle of crime).

Even when jails aren't exactly luxury hotels, they're still better than nothing to some inmates, I suppose. This thread made me recall something. One of my cousins used to work as a guard, then later, as a vocational trainer (he taught the inmates to do plumbing and electrician work), at our local minimum security prison. I once heard him talk about how there would be an enormous increase in "walk-aways" in late fall of most years. They generally didn't get far, they simply "escaped" by walking not terribly far outside the perimeter of the fence, and generally just waited there until they were "caught". They would do it in order to get another 6 months tacked onto their sentence, because they literally felt like they had nowhere else to go.

Some of the inmates really did feel unprepared for functioning in the "real world". In the jail, they could be assured that they had food, shelter, and something to keep them occupied and out of trouble. It's sort of the "horse to water" analogy. You can put the training out there and try to prepare them, but some of them are going to pick the "easier now" option. Like some of your fellow students in high school.

I remember thinking that was incredibly sad, that such a number of the inmates were afraid of living "outside". Many of them were very decent in their own way. When my cousin lost his teenage daughter in a car accident, the inmates actually insisted upon taking up their own money for him. The stories he told made me have the thought that perhaps, faced with the same continuous, uphill slog that many of these inmates would face as the "working poor" once they got out, possibly without much support from family or friends, maybe I would take the "safe" route, too.

I thought those stats in the first article sounded pretty fishy, even before mgraylorn posted the "rebuttal" article. Then again, like most of the people in this thread so far, I think defining "poverty" nationwide is an iffy business. Cost of living varies too much from area to area. Then again, I'm sort of with Disraeli. "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics."

[BlackThorn]

It's pretty easy for people with even a $50k + a year income to be stuck living in a poverty-like state by no fault of their own once you add in medical problems and the mounting costs. Or people with incomes like that who live in a poverty-like state because they screwed up and owe thousands upon thousands to credit card companies and such. Yeah, they got some nice things at one point in time, but now they can barely budget in enough to keep a car or keep the utilities turned on.

By the same hand, I've known a few people with only $15-20k incomes who lived like kings. They were lucky enough to not have any medical problems, and instead of living to the limit, putting themselves in debt to the point where they were stuck living paycheck to paycheck to pay all the bills, they were smart about their money. They lived very simply when it came to monthly costs and lived in low cost of living areas, and this enabled them to sock money away to make big purchases for things like big flatscreen TVs, stereo systems, rec vehicles, etc.

So, yes, amount of income per year really has little to do with poverty level. Cost of living in the area and personal requirements (ie. medical conditions, etc..) have more to do with it. Around here, $20k a year a pretty damn good job, considering most of the jobs here don't bring in that much. But when you're having to pay an easy $600-800 a month in rent, $150-$250 a month in gas because of the high prices and long rural drives (most people I know have to drive anywhere from 15-35 miles each way to work every day because they couldn't find a job closer to home, and to move closer to work could mean a much higher rent), then groceries, utilities, car insurance, etc . . . Well, it doesn't go very far, and forget the extras like when you get sick, or need new work clothes, or your car breaks down. But hey, that's still nowhere near as bad as trying to support a household on one minimum wage job and with no "assistance."

So, is poverty the inability to "keep up with the Jones's" as some people seem to think? Or is it the inability to easily pay for the basic necessities? And if so, does that include people who have high incomes but too much debt or ongoing medical problems? And if poverty is only being able to afford dial-up instead of cable internet, then what's the new term for those who can't even consider paying for dial-up because that bit of money could go for food on the table?

[LT Garrix]

Good points BlackThorn.

One thing that is missing from a youngster's education is finances. It's a nice thought that parents should teach their kids fiscal responsibility and the fiscally responsible method of using credit cards, but many adults out there have no concept of those things and can't teach their kids.

While I don't think schools should teach all life skills, it's painfully obvious that basic personal finance needs to be tought somewhere. Growing up we never had luxuries, cheap cars and my mom never really used credit cards. If she did, she paid it off at the end of the month. When I went to college I was given a card with a $500 limit and the stipulation it only be used for books and the occasional meal out once or twice a month. If I abused it, it would be cut off. This taught me some fiscal responsibility and helped my credit record.

Credit card companies have facilitated this by giving just about anyone a credit card. I know where had flyers all over the place targeting us college students with promises of several thousand dollars of credit at an incredibly low interest rate (that oh by the way ballooned up after graduation).

So, between unscrupulous credit card marketing and a lack of financial responsibility it has become incredibly easy for people to live beyond their means. Our materialistic culture fuels this even further with ads and TV shows that say happiness only comes from having possessions. I remember back when it was very hard to get a credit card. Not anymore. I routinely get 20 applications a month.

Thanks to what I learned in my youth the only debt I have is one more car payment. I only ever carried a credit card balance once.

I know that the Navy has even begun teaching basic finances to sailors after many complaints from people like me that my guys had no idea how to manage money. I had people working for me who thought that as long as they had checks they had money in their account. They had no idea how to read a pay statement or a bank statement. No concept of how to budget either.

And then I see shows like Dr. Phil where parents have 3 mortgages in order to buy the high fashion stuff their 14 year old daughters want. :eek: It doesn't bode well for the future.

BTW, if I have kids, they are going to hate me. Even though I live better than I did as a kid, I have a hard time buying expensive clothing or splurging on things. And my mom learned it from her mom who grew up in the Depression.

[Judith]

Good points BlackThorn.

One thing that is missing from a youngster's education is finances. It's a nice thought that parents should teach their kids fiscal responsibility and the fiscally responsible method of using credit cards, but many adults out there have no concept of those things and can't teach their kids.




YES! At 23, I have had to learn (and am still learning) about financial responsibility through trial and error! I WISH I had known some of the things I know now when I had applied for my first credit card, and although I am much better with finanaces now, I still don't feel like I know enough.

[LT Garrix]

I think it is incredibly unscrupulous and predatory for credit card companies to give cards to college students with no jobs. My SIL got in some pretty serious debt. She didn't understand some of the implications. Now, she always made her payments, but even my hubby trying to explain to her why she shouldn't charge things she wasn't going to pay off at the end of the month didn't get through. She saw a chance to take what she thought was a low interest loan.

Now, 8 years later, she has finally struggled out from under that debt and owns her own home.

Interesting fact, if you have even moderate credit card debt and make only the minimum payment, it will take something like 30 years to pay it all off.

And Judith, you are not alone in your feelings. I realize that when I talk with some of my friends and co-workers still struggling to get out from under debt they incurred in college.

[LT Garrix]

Vocational Classes Fall Out of Favor
Wednesday, September 22, 2004

“I see my program dying. I see other programs dying,” said Chappel.

In high schools across the country vocational classes (search) — auto shop, wood shop, metal shop — are being phased out.

The push to is now on academics: The federal "No Child Left Behind" law even holds schools accountable for academic performance.

The problem, say critics, is that 38 percent of kids don’t go to college — and a high percentage of them may end up being mechanics, carpenters and machinists.

“I think the schools have an obligation to prepare them for those opportunities as well as, where appropriate, to move on to more classic liberal arts education,” said Jim Stone, director of the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.

But to offer hands-on training, schools need to get their hands on more money. These days, learning to fix a car means using very expensive diagnostic computers that schools simply can’t afford, which is a big reason why, over the past 15 years, California high schools have dropped more than half of their vocational classes.

The superintendent of the California Department of Education, Jack O'Connell, who says he supports vocational education, argues that technical students can also benefit from a good dose of academics.

“We can't have students who can't solve basic algebra in these classes, because they're not going to be able to be problem solvers when our cars don't run,” said Jack O’Connell.

As the number of vocational education classes have gone down, the high school dropout rate across the country has gone up. Experts don't yet know if there's a correlation, but they do know schools today are geared more for the college-bound than the blue collar-bound.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133099,00.html)

This is not a good sign. Not every kid out there is going to be a rocket scientist. And, seriously folks, we can't function as a country without blue collar workers. There have to be people to fix and build things. Schools are there to educate our kids, to give them the tools they need to make a living, but contrary to the "no child left behind", children are being left behind.

With vocational programs these kids can get the basic skills they need to enter a job at an apprentice level, and after proving themselves can move on to journeyman and beyond through additional schooling/OJT that their employers will pay for. Most of these are kids coming from disadvantaged families that can't afford to send their kids to college or post HS vocational programs.

I will agree that this country is lacking in producing students in technical fields. I read articles on a daily basis about defense contractors begging for US citizens with tech degrees to apply for jobs. In my high school class of 800, there were only 25 of us taking advanced math and science classes that would prepare us for technical programs in college. That's 3%. The US is losing technological ground in leaps and bounds because we don't have the resources to develop new technology. But, in our push to try to produce more people interested and able to enter tech fields we shouldn't sacrifice others.

[mgraylorn]

Ive been looking for articles on characteristics of the poor. You might be surprised at how many people below the poverty line work. Most of what I found is too big to post here, so I've just included the references.

I tried to go to the Census Bureau to find the "official definition of poverty" as it relates to human condition, and it was damn near impossible to find. I later found this Economist article that spells out the origins of the Census Bureau's formulation of the poverty line here: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3146724
Basically it is based on the minimun cost of a nutritionally balanced diet for a family of 3 and multiplied by 3. Why 3? Because in 1964, data suggested families spend one third of their income on food. There are tons of articles on the inadequecy of this definition to accurately define poverty today.

Here is the article:
The other planet
Aug 30th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda


The number of Americans in poverty is rising, as is the number without health insurance. The best anti-poverty programme is a tight labour market. America still doesnt have one
[]

CONTRARY to popular belief, President George Bushs campaign against terrorism is not the first time the United States has waged war on an abstract noun. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Then, as now, the administration had some trouble defining the enemy. The poverty line it eventually adopted, a line first drawn by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration, remains in place today, adjusted for inflation, but otherwise scarcely altered. Two parents, bringing up two kids, are judged to be poor if they live on less than $18,660 a year (for an unencumbered individual under the age of 65, the threshold is $9,573). On Thursday August 26th, the Census Bureau revealed that 35.9m Americans, or 12.5% of the population, fell below this poverty line in 2003, 1.3m more than the year before.

Whatever crude logic it possessed at the time, the Orshansky poverty line is by now quite arbitrary. Its originator calculated the cost of meeting a familys nutritional needs and then multiplied this figure by three, because families in that era spent about a third of their income on food. The Census Bureau does not repeat this exercise to determine todays poverty line; it does not recalculate the cost of an adequate diet or remeasure the share of income spent on food. It simply adjusts Ms Orshanskys figures for inflation. Thus todays dollar thresholds do not tell us how much a family or individual needs to get by in todays America; they simply restate the cost of feeding a family in the 1960s in todays prices, and multiply it by three.

As the Census Bureau is the first to concede, the poverty line is not a complete description of what people and families need to live. A more complete description would show that poor families now spend a far bigger share of their budget on housing (nearly 33%, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics) than on food (just 13.2%). Child care, done for free by the mothers and grandmothers of the 1950s and 1960s, is now a big expense. Deducting this expense from the measured income of families would add 1.9m to the official poverty figure, according to estimates by Isabel Sawhill and Adam Thomas of the Brookings Institution.

But a better measure of poverty would also assess the various weapons the government deploys against it. The current measure ignores non-monetary benefits, such as food stamps. Nor does it count the earned income-tax credit, a benefit paid via the tax code to the working poor, which has become every policy wonks favourite way to redistribute money. The Census Bureau has already experimented with such measures, and is probably itching to finally retire the Orshansky line. But its political masters in the Office of Management and Budget may be nervous of any innovation that would raise the official poverty number. To the bureau, the poverty line may be a mere statistical yardstick, but to the administration, it is a political stick its opponents might use to beat it with.

But if the level of poverty is fairly arbitrary, changes in the level are quite telling. Poverty fell throughout the long economic expansion of the Clinton years, from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.3% in 2000. Particularly striking was the fall in poverty among single mothers and their families, from 35.6% (4.4m) in 1993 to 25.4% (3.3m) in 2000.

The bubble years were also a period of ferment in the countrys welfare laws. State handouts came with new strings and time limits attached. Single mothers were encouraged, often required, to work. In a 2000 study, Rebecca Blank, who once served on President Bill Clintons Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that welfare reformboth the state experiments of the early 1990s and the federal overhaul of 1996reduced the poverty rate among female high-school dropouts by about 5 percentage points.

But the latest census figures show a partial reversal of these gains. Poverty among the households of single mothers has increased from 25.4% in 2000 to 28% in 2003. Child poverty has also increased. In retrospect it is clear that Mr Clinton signed his 1996 welfare reform at an auspicious time: the economy was creating jobs faster than people were being ousted from the welfare rolls; the states implementing the reforms were flush with cash. But as Congress now debates how to revamp and extend the law (the 1996 act was due to expire in 2002), all of these stars have fallen out of alignment.

Firms are reluctant to hire, and even when they do, they are loth to offer health insurance. Employer-sponsored health plans covered 1.3m fewer Americans last year than the year before. State governments are strapped for cash; as a result, they are cutting back on child-care assistance. Many welfare recipients are now close to using up all the months of help they are entitled to. Unfortunately, those who remained dependent on welfare when times were good are the least likely to get a job now that times are not so good.

Benjamin Disraeli, a 19th century British prime minister, likened the rich and the poor to two nations, between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each others habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were&inhabitants of different planets. As a guide to the less fortunate of these two planets, the Census Bureaus poverty figures are flawed and anachronistic. But they do show that welfare reform is not by itself enough. Unless the labour market tightens further this year, there will be many more Americans discovering the other planet for themselves in 2004.

Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.


http://www.ameristat.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/AboutPRB/Population_Bulletin2/PovertyInAmerica.pdf this discusses poverty levels, increase/decreas in poverty, geographic characteristics, and starting on page 16 of the PDF, characteristics of the poor.

This website talks about homelessness and poverty - check out the working poor who are homeless http://www.nlchp.org/FA_HAPIA/causes.cfm

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/05/art1abs.htm What does it mean to be poor in America? Click on the link to dowload the full PDF, or the link for a summary.

[LT Garrix]

Thanks mgraylorn. I look forward to checking these articles, etc out. I do remember reading about the arbitrariness of the definition of poverty. Out here in SoCal there are families where Mom and Dad combined work 3-4 min wage jobs in order to pay rent, utilities, food and clothing. These families have no cars and often live in overcrowded conditions to mitigate the high cost of housing.

And believe I have heard of the plight of the working poor. Those too proud to go on welfare, even though they would be making more money on welfare then they do at a min wage job (mostly because there was no need to pay childcare when on welfare). The local paper in Norfolk used to run articles about that every couple of months.

I know out here that childcare runs about $1000 a month. With rent and utilities running the same and add in about $500 a month for food all of the sudden even two min wage jobs can't cover the expenses. And that's assuming there is only one child.

And the answer isn't raising min wage because then businesses that rely on min wage employees will have to raise prices since profit margins are so sliim in the first place and then we are right back to where we started if not worse off, because now those that were making more than min wage have seen their buying power decrease.

[FrelledProwler]

putting aside all the statistics and "left" and "right" articles, has anyone ever volunteered in school these days. Do an informal poll of the kids on the school lunch program. See just how many of them have "Air Nikes" on their feet, and one or both parents smoke. As fast as kids grow, those Nike's need to be replace about every six months, and given the tax on smokes these days it all adds up......think that money could be used for food?

[LT Garrix]

FP, I know what you mean. I have a friend who's hubby is out of work (he's a real slimeball using his diabetes as an excuse to not work, I have many diabetic friends who work), have no phone (slimeball's friend ran up the long distance bill and it was disconnected for non-payment) has trouble making rent, utility and food payments every month, yet they both smoke about a pack a day. WTF? That's about $80-100 a month. I could buy groceries for a week off that or at least start to pay down the phone debt. Not to mention the health risk they are putting themselves and thier daughter in (they smoke in the house).

And what? Ask some kid to go without his $150 sneakers? You must be joking. He'd never make friends, be ridiculed and be destined for failure by the resulting low self esteem. :rolleyes:

[FrelledProwler]

And what? Ask some kid to go without his $150 sneakers? You must be joking. He'd never make friends, be ridiculed and be destined for failure by the resulting low self esteem. :rolleyes:


yeah, I wanted to run faster and jump higher too, never got those PF Flyers.

[LT Garrix]

I don't think the whole time I was growing up I had an article of clothing or pair of shoes that cost more than $20 other than my prom dress. Let's just say I well knew the value of the "Blue Light Special"

[FrelledProwler]

I'm kind of an anomaly, I'm the yongest of 6 kids, and older than most on this board, so both my parents were depression era babies.....i never had anything that wasn't "previously appreicated".

[LT Garrix]

:lol I can understand that. We would shop at thrift stores for high end purchases. That's where two of my Military Ball dresses came from. Mom made one, one of her friends gave me another and my prom dress was a recycle of one of those.

We never had expensive toys, we'd get the GI Joe's but not the expensive bases or vehicles. I had the cheaper Barbie Townhouse rather than the dream house. I got the generic car and not the Barbie Vetter, etc. We never ran the AC and didn't have a computer. Heck, we never had a state of the art video game system. I almost never got albums of my favorite bands, I'd have friends make copies for me. We had a Yugo, yup, you read that one right, a Yugo.

Were we poor? No, I don't think so. We never went hungry or naked. Were we well off? No, but it didn't matter. We had food, shelter and a Mom who loved us. Both me and my brother went to college and are working steady, well-paying jobs. Of course, we went to college by virtue of getting scholarships since Mom told us early on that she couldn't pay for it.

But according to what I've been reading here, my standard of living was the same then as many of those that we consider poor now. This definition definitely needs some work.

[FrelledProwler]

GI Joe, Cool, created in my home town (everyone worked at Hasbro at point in their life).....including my sister at 16. My sister was the only one to graduate from college (of course that was a step up, 'cause dad never finished high school).

[Lex]

(Let me put a very miniscule part of it into perspective for you. I have chronic migraines, as a result of my surgery. I don't always know when I"m going to be hit by one. When I do get one that sneaks up on me and slams me into the floor, I have no choice but to go to the emergency room. One visit.. ONE visit... costs me approximately $700. With no insurance, and several of these visits per year, despite medication I"m currently on, I have sh*t credit because of the ungodly amounts I owe in past medical bills. They will probably never be paid off ... unless I hit the powerball or something)

I feel for you Kathleen. :hug: There is NO way when in the throws of a migraine not to go to the ER. (aside from the pain, it can also lead to stroke) One thing that has helped me is the opening of urent care facilities in my area - costs about $200.00 per visit instead of over $1,000.00 for ER. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the powerball.

[Tjapu]

Three years ago, my husband and I filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. It was dismissed by the courts when they wanted to take over $300 a WEEK out of our paychecks. At the time, my husband was the only one working while I stayed at home to raise our son.

January of last year (2003), we moved to Louisiana. I got a job and so did my husband. I work 6, sometimes 7, days a week. My husband works 5 days a week. I make $6.50/hour and he makes $8.00/hour. We bring home, after taxes, about $500 week. That's if neither of us has to miss a day of work or take off earlyl from work. I do occasionally get extra money for doing extra work, but it's not very often. Around Christmas is when it saves us. So we make due on about $30,000 a year. We have been married for 9 years and we still rent a house because we haven't been able to afford one of our own. I drive an '88 model car and he has a '92 model truck. They're both beat up and need constant maintenance, but it's all we have. We scrape to put food on the table for us, but my son is GUARANTEED to eat well each and every single day that he draws breath. The only government help we get is a Medicaid card for my son. Neither one of our jobs has an insurance program, so if we get sick, it comes out of pocket.

Now, what pisses me off? It's when I see these people out there getting THOUSANDS of dollars a month in welfare just so they can drop more babies into this overcrowded world. They drive brand new, loaded to the hilt vehicles, but live in a one or two-bedroom shack. Then they have the gall to sit there and tell me that I OWE them. No. I don't owe them jack sh*t. I work my ass off each and every day, month after month, manage to stay OFF of welfare, barely eek out a living, but my bills are paid and my baby boy is taken care of.

I am poor, financially, but I am rich beyond measure in so many other things. So, yes, I think poor is "relative".
The myth of large numbers of people receiving thousands of dollars a month in welfare money is just that, a myth. About a year ago I had to have back surgery. To put it mildly it didn't go well. I couldn't return to work. I received temporary disability benefits that amounted to about 38 percent of what I had been earning. That lasted for 3 months. When those benefits ended I applied for social security disability and while waiting for them to say yeah (still waiting 7 months and 3 hospitalizations later) or nay I went through my 401K which I must admit was not as much as I should have set aside and had shrunk when the market tanked. Well I've been borrowing money from family members and thought maybe I should swallow my pride and apply for welfare. It was the most demeaning day of my life and I decided that for the "huge" amount of money I was eligible for it was not worth the feelings of violation. The system is set up in such a way that you can't sustain yourself in a major metropolitan area without cheating. How is that for sick ? If there are people spitting out babies like a Pez dispenser , how about spending a little more on education ?? The first time you have a baby that you need to get govenment assistance for should at the very least be a time that aforesaid mother gets parenting classes and a way to improve her chances of getting work that will support her and her baby.

[AgentSun]

"poverty" is a very vague term because it is different for everyone. to someone like donald trump, we're wallowing in the depths of financial hell. to someone like that woman who lives in a trailer park, and works night shifts at walmart, almost all of us are richer. i live in a five bedroom house with four bathrooms, and a deck and patio. are we wealthy? not exactly, because there are a lot of people a whole lot wealthier than we are. are we poor? no, because we are fairly well off. but to certain people, we are rich, and to certain people we are not. it all depends on perspective.

what "poverty" means is not exactly truthful, because there are a lot of people who have even less than what the government says "poor" is, and they see the less poor as being wealthy.

i learned in psych class that wealth is not necessarily material goods. it is what is in the family, what is in the environment you grow up in, and who you are as a person. there are people out there who are richer than you and i could imagine, and they are miserable. they are poor because they have no love, and no hope, and yet they have all the cars and money they would ever need or want. and the same goes in reverse. you can have absolutely nothing, live on the barest of necessities, and have all the joy in the world because you have love and family.

[Kathleen]

First of all, to Tjapu... Honey, I don't know where you live, but where I LIVE, there *are* people getting thousands of dollars of month in welfare. They have 8 or 9 kids and get over $3000 a month and they are NOT working. It comes straight from the government. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have seen this with my own eyes, so it's definitely not a "myth".

AS, sweetie. You ARE wealthy. Of course, that is my perspective on it. But when you sit and tell us about your 5 bedroom, 4 bath home with big screen tv, theatre room and 4 vehicles, that just smacks of being wealthy. Your parents probably have a combined 6 figure income, as well. There is nothing wrong with that, at ALL. I'm glad that you have some of the luxuries of life. It's just difficult to see someone that has all of that say "we're not THAT well off". Yes, honey, you are THAT well off. :shrug:

[LT Garrix]

AS, my quality of life is not quite as high as your family's and I definitely consider myself pretty well off. When you own a TV that costs more than a lot of cars, you pretty much have to consider yourself well off.

Yeah, I don't have Trump's type of money, but with income above the median income I'd be lying to say I was "fairly well off"

[FrelledProwler]

i'm not denying i'm well off, and I'm not denying that there are people below the poverty line that need the help....it's just that if the government (federal and state) is taking 1/2 of what I earn, I'd like to see a better way of deternmining who gets it!

how many of these people below the poverty line continue to have kids?....I didn't have kids until I was 30 because I didn't think I could provide for them, and even then I stopped at 2.

[Antrobus]

While I'm by no means poor, I'm not wealthy either. We have some people in our community who are wealthy and others that are poor. And then there are those that are frugal. My parents fall into that category because they were raised by parents that lived through the depression.

My mother's father didn't have a car until 1948 although he and my grandmother had been married for 15 years. They also didn't own a house until about 1945. They couldn't afford it. My grandfather either walked or took a train to work. My mother walked about 2 miles to school - even in the dead of winter. I've heard her speak of many nights that their supper consisted of biscuits and molasses because that's all they had until payday.
Not many people would stand for that today, but they did because that's the way it was and they were certainly not the only ones living that way.

Going back a generation earlier, I once asked my grandmother (my mother's mother) what they (her and her siblings) got for Christmas when they were children. She said that their father would usually get them an orange.

So as times move and shift the definition of poverty changes. While poverty is a problem in this country I feel that the bigger problems are the inaccessability of healthcare for many and people's lack of the ability to be frugal.

As for welfare, I worked for 5 years in an inner city health clinic and welfare is abused by some and much needed by others. Does there need to be reform? Yes, but it would involve such micromanaging that I don't know if it would be worth it.

[FrelledProwler]

As for welfare, I worked for 5 years in an inner city health clinic and welfare is abused by some and much needed by others. Does there need to be reform? Yes, but it would involve such micromanaging that I don't know if it would be worth it.

i've never thought the answer to a challenge was to walk away from it.....if that were true I'd still be wearing my brother's old clothes.