In the short run people can consume without income. But in the long run people
without income fall farther behind people with income. income is a better
measure in the long run.
re: gregwibert 8:04 p.m. Sept. 26, 2012"So, they take annual
trips to disneyland but their vehicles go unmaintained? They may not qualify for
poverty...sounds more like they need a finance class...lol..."It's a small world after all???
how does it make any sense as a measure? Lets measure the assistance they get
after they have been determined to be in poverty to measure whether they are
really in poverty. If after taking into account the assistance the get they
still fall well under the poverty line then that would be a good measure of if
the assistance goes far enough not if they where in poverty to begin with.
Thank you, PeterR.As a Republican, if any one thing disgusted me
most in the past four years, it was this: when Republicans in Congress said
that their first priority was to oppose anything Obama did in an effort to
regain the majority and the White House.Excuse me, I elect
representatives to represent me, and to support good policies, no matter who
brings them forward, and compromise with other representatives when need be, for
the good of the country. Two thumbs down to the GOP mission statement of the
past four years.
Mitt Romney excedes the "poverty line" by 9:30 in the morning on Jan.
01.He has no clue how the other half (i.e., 47%) lives....
@Screwdriver, you're being disingenuous to paint all conservatives as
heartless self-servers. Here's how I believe most conservatives are
thinking about the issue: (a) The job of government is not to provide for
its people, but rather to help people provide for themselves in a peaceful and
productive manner. Asking nothing of the recipient is anathema to this goal. A
more apt description of conservative attitude on this is, "Give a man a
fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime;"(b) people should be rewarded for hard and honest work;(c) fair and
equal are not always the same thing, nor should they be confused as such;(d) there is a misconception that giving while requiring no accountability it
somehow compassionate. Compassion is doing what's best for another, even
at your own expense. That may include withholding something from someone
who's repeatedly been given something. It's hard to be the person to
finally say, "no" you can't have that now and you'll always
end up looking like the bad guy.(e) people don't belong to the
government, the government belongs to people.
There is a trend right now to create straw-man arguments of the other side and
then pick apart those arguments for their weaknesses. Conservatives say
liberals want to take everything from the rich and give to the poor, while
liberals claim that conservatives are egotistical self-servers who have no
compassion. Let's take a step back and assume that instead of wanting the
worst, everybody is actually trying to get at the same thing--happiness and
prosperity for as many people in our country as possible.
Conservatives like to use that the "poverty rate" lack of change means
anti-poverty programs don't work. If you are the one that didn't
starve to death those programs men a great deal.Let's look
outside our country where there are no safety nets. People actually starve to
death. Kids grow up without any education. Kids are mentally stunted due to lack
of nutrition.Since that doesn't happen here in the US I'll
disagree that anti-poverty programs don't have any effect. Disingenuous arguments are just lies. Is that your lifetime legacy
concervatives? Christianity is the largest anti-poverty program in history. Just
go with it - life is short, you'll have eternity to be rich.
When I was in graduate school, our children easily qualified for medicaid, etc.
We were told that our family of two young children and two adults qualified for
about $500 in food stamps each month. We now have 4 very healthy kids, 3 of
which are boys and eat like crazy and we still don't spend that much in
food each month (we eat well by preparing most of our food from scratch, so
we're not going hungry or anything). The catch? We had about $5000 in
emergency savings and we would have to get rid of that in order to have food
stamps. We opted to forego the "help," inasmuch as it would leave us
stranded in the case of an emergency.I think the government should
have programs to help lift people out of poverty. After all, we are all better
off if everyone is healthy and happy. However, so many of the government
programs I've been privy to seem to contradict the notion of helping people
to help themselves, including those I've taken advantage of. They're
poorly managed and often discourage people from fostering good habits.
So, finally they will be counting the fact that people living in subsidized
housing have premium cable, smart phones and fast food waistlines.
A chart showing consumption, correlated with poverty level, would help clarify
this article.So, they take annual trips to disneyland but their
vehicles go unmaintained? They may not qualify for poverty...sounds more like
they need a finance class...lol...
Better data means better policies. By all means, let us use this more acurate
This is long over due.People are taking advantage of our system.
So, when my neighbors/relatives are complaining about how low their income is,
it is possible they have more usable cash than I have with a higher income when
all the extras they receive are added in. I wondered how they managed to go to
Disneyland every year with their tax money they received. They never have money
to repair their cars, pay for medical or other necessities. Christmas is also
provided to them. This way to measure poverty makes more sense.