"there are no poor in America". Oh what a sheltered life and concept
that is. I have a really good job and I still have to budget
carefully even though my newest vehicle is 12 years old and I'm frugal.
I can't even imagine a young guy 18 years old trying to work 2
or three jobs to support his wife and one child. Imagine constantly worrying
about a trip to the emergency room being more than 3 months wages or 5 years
I certainly agree that poverty standards in America are relative. I think they
are relative wherever you go. And, given our economic standing in the world,
this means being poor here is "better" than being poor in many other
countries. No argument.Are there folks who live in entrenched
poverty - generation to generation? Yes. But I am not sure that having zero
public assistance programs would change that. Are there others who are helped
by programs without creating a climate of dependency? Sure.There
are good folks who utilize TANF, WIC, and Section 8 at tough times in their
lives, sometimes in advanced age (yeah, I know, not WIC if they are elderly).Some think that these programs have done nothing. Having spent some
time in Eastern Kentucky, I can promise you that is not true. If you look at
1920s and 1930s pictures of Appalachia, the situation has definitely improved.
Perfect? No. But certainly better.Does this mean the programs are
all great just as they are? No. Lots of improvement is possible. But never
believe they do nothing. If you need a refresher, please see Dickens or
Steinbeck. There is a reason for public programs.
There are few poor in America today. While wages have held stagnant or fallen
the cost of goods has also fallen thus increasing purchasing power. This is
mostly do to golbalization and improvements in technological efficiencies. Being poor in America today means making less than someone else, not
necessarily lacking enough for your or your families' needs.
that was suppose to read why more of the middle class and wealthy voted for
@DN subSo explain to us why the middle class and the wealthy vote for
Obama then Romney? why do 67% of the the wealthy support higher taxes for their
income level? the same tired rhetoric has failed you over and over again come
election time its time for new material.
An interesting article. Regardless of how you feel about government assistance
to the poor, the metrics we use to define poverty has a very substantial impact
on the issue. I'm not one to believe that a family cannot be considered
poor if they have a refrigerator or internet access, but I also don't agree
with David Betson's idea of scaling poverty according to overall societal
affluence. USAlover & DN Subscriber,You are parroting a
lot of talking points about the poor being lazy, unmotivated, and slaves to
government assistance, but you don't provide any perspective on what
proportion of the poor this is actually true for. Do you have any idea of how
many of the nation's poor are there for the reasons you claim?
Our so-called "war on poverty" has wasted trillions of dollars, and done
little to fix the actual problems. Instead, we have created
successive generations who have become (somewhat contentedly) enslaved on the
liberal welfare plantation. Recognizing that their income is the result if big
government, not their own hard work, they have become a reliable voting block
for the Democrats, who entire more "poor" by raising the poverty line
and promising more "free stuff."We really need to look at
our country as a whole. We are $16 trillion in debt, with no way to ever repay
that. Surely that means our lack of income, and crushing burden of debt is the
national equivalent of being hopelessly mired in poverty.But, there
is no one to turn to for handouts for the government. Ergo, handouts to the
poor WILL be reduced, one way or another. Or, we just collapse into class
warfare as the poor pick the wealth of the hard workers.
There will always be poverty because there will always be impregnated teenagers,
drug use, mental illness, laziness, unskilled, uneducated people and, of course,
genuine bad fortune that's beyond our control. To actually declare a
solution to poverty is both nonsense and ignorance. A good portion of the poor
don't want help to themselves. Giving money is not always helping, nor is
it a solution. Helping them to help themselves in the solution, but the
solution is not always possible.Regardless, I reaffirm our
responsibility to help the poor as much as possible to begin to help themselves.
God has helped me a million times do things that I couldn't do on my own.
But He has never, EVER, done for me what I was able to do myself.
Federal anti-poverty programs of necessity reduce people to statistics. Local
attention from family members, neighbors, churches, and other community groups
are better equipped to assess individual circumstances and truly alleviate
suffering rather than throwing money around in the hope that it might do some
good. Local attention is also more immune to fraud and abuse.