Is poverty a number or a behavior?

[shintao]

Children born into poverty too?

Oh yeah, they are tagged from birth. It's those fucking child labor laws that prevents them from succeeding.....LOL!

 

[rdean]

Children born into poverty too?

Oh yeah, they are tagged from birth. It's those fucking child labor laws that prevents them from succeeding.....LOL!

Oh, child labor laws. Now I get it.

 

[HUGGY]

Even the poorest Americans have access to resources that were undreamed of by kings 100 years ago, but they are still impoverished.

If you compare how folks live in the rest of the world (Check out Viikii.com for videos from all over to see how the rest of the world lives) you would see, in terms of cash anyway, no one in American is poor.

However, we do have people who are malnourished and always dependent on others for everything.

Poverty is not having a small amount of cash, it is using the cash badly.

Poverty is sexual incontinence, drug dependence, broken homes, lazyness, juggling debt. Under this formulation Lindsy Lohan and Paris Hilton live in poverty.

One can be poor, but not in poverty. Being poor sucks, but is often fate. You can take charge and change it

Poverty is where your behavior sucks, and karma bites you in the ass.

I hope some desperately poor person takes some initiative and robs you. That would be Karma.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 - Yahoo! News

All I know about poverty is it will get a lot worse under Democrats, and oh great, it already has. Some liberals actually think the Democrats actually care about the poor somehow.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I do find It strange that many people called Poor in this country. Have Cable TV, High speed internet, and Cell phones. Priorities I guess.

I find it strange that you could believe such nonsense.

Maybe because it's true.

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

* Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventysix 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 twothirds 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 cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higherincome children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Understanding Poverty in America

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Children born into poverty too?

Yep. Just because you are born into it doesn't mean you have to live in it as an adult.

Just for the first 18 years for your life.
I am sure it does not color your view of the world or your sense of self worth one bit.

Perhaps, but that's no excuse to do nothing with your life.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep. Just because you are born into it doesn't mean you have to live in it as an adult.

Just for the first 18 years for your life.
I am sure it does not color your view of the world or your sense of self worth one bit.

Perhaps, but that's no excuse to do nothing with your life.

technically true, but since empiracal evidence shows that very few climb out of poverty perhaps a reason more than an excuse?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I've never made more than 37,000/yr in my life.

Interestingly enough, 50,000/yr is considered middle class.

Was it a choice to do that? Yes. I thought serving my country was more important than making fat cash. Now? I live at what most would consider poverty level, but, I'm able to live on my retirement, which leaves me time for writing, drawing, philosophy and all the other stuff I wanted to do.

And to tell you the truth? I couldn't be happier. I'm not tied up in all the material wealth that others have. I've got enough to eat, stuff to keep me entertained and a nice bicycle that gets me where I want to go, when I want to go.

Is poverty a state of mind? Yes, if you think you're poor, then you NEVER have enough money. If you think you're well off (and I do, because I don't go hungry), then you're really not interested in anything butting in on your free time, because you're too busy living.

Interestingly enough, no matter how bad my circumstances got, I never drew welfare. However, when I was an E-4 in the Navy, when both my sons were born, my ex wife enrolled in WIC. Why? WIC offers free formula and at E-4 pay, that helps out a LOT.

 

[xotoxi]

So by this definition, when one looks only at the United States by itself, we DO have financial poverty here, since our "usual or socially acceptable amount" is very different from the rest of the world's.

That is a good point. We can't forget that our cost of living is much higher than in other countries.

And just because our citizens have potential access to far more resources than compared to other countries, doesn't necessarily mean that those resources are attainable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do find It strange that many people called Poor in this country. Have Cable TV, High speed internet, and Cell phones. Priorities I guess.

Why? Those are not terribly expensive things to acquire, and two of three tend to be fairly difficult to live without in the United States in the 21st century. The third . . . well, the movie industry still made quite a lot of money during the Great Depression, because people will always need a break from harsh reality, a respite to keep them losing hope.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Poverty in the U.S. has been redefined as a Sacred Cow Caste that the rest of us are supposed to support by unquestioning compliance with an ever increasing tax burden.

It beats having your house burglarized, you might enjoy the rape, your insurance rates going up, your deductible on lost goods, that abortion for a conceived child of the predator. Jus saying, you could have a choice. You do of course understand that people, even poor people, are going to eat and have basic needs like taking a crap on your lawn.

I do love people who think it's perfectly acceptable to threaten the rest of the world with savagery unless they're appeased and pacified by sacrifices they have not earned.

You do, of course, understand that people, even poor people, used to have decency and dignity? It's instructive to learn that you and yours have done away with such concepts in favor of naked barbarism. What sort of animal skin do you prefer for your loincloth, anyway?

 

[shintao]

Poverty in the U.S. has been redefined as a Sacred Cow Caste that the rest of us are supposed to support by unquestioning compliance with an ever increasing tax burden.

It beats having your house burglarized, you might enjoy the rape, your insurance rates going up, your deductible on lost goods, that abortion for a conceived child of the predator. Jus saying, you could have a choice. You do of course understand that people, even poor people, are going to eat and have basic needs like taking a crap on your lawn.

I do love people who think it's perfectly acceptable to threaten the rest of the world with savagery unless they're appeased and pacified by sacrifices they have not earned.

Geeze, I shouldn't point out the obvious to people who are too dysfunctional to figure it out for themselves. All of sudden that becomes a "threat." LOL!

You do, of course, understand that people, even poor people, used to have decency and dignity?

No, I don't understand that at all. Nothing has changed expect the means by which they go about doing the same things.

It's instructive to learn that you and yours have done away with such concepts in favor of naked barbarism. What sort of animal skin do you prefer for your loincloth, anyway?

Of course you are joking. I have several loincloths, black bear, lynx, coyote, Buffalo, elk. Which would you prefer to lay it out on?

 

[The T]

In this nation? Poverty is the latter. But lately? Something Forced by Government by design to force people to rely upon Government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It beats having your house burglarized, you might enjoy the rape, your insurance rates going up, your deductible on lost goods, that abortion for a conceived child of the predator. Jus saying, you could have a choice. You do of course understand that people, even poor people, are going to eat and have basic needs like taking a crap on your lawn.

I do love people who think it's perfectly acceptable to threaten the rest of the world with savagery unless they're appeased and pacified by sacrifices they have not earned.

Geeze, I shouldn't point out the obvious to people who are too dysfunctional to figure it out for themselves. All of sudden that becomes a "threat." LOL!


Insofar as the "inevitability" of such Neanderthal behavior is only "obvious" to the Neanderthals, yes. It's a threat. As for you calling ANYONE dysfunctional . . .

You do, of course, understand that people, even poor people, used to have decency and dignity?

No, I don't understand that at all. Nothing has changed expect the means by which they go about doing the same things.

Well, at least you're honest about not understanding decency and dignity. And dumbass, it's the "means by which they go about doing things" where one finds decency and dignity: I get the means to support my life by working hard, or I get it by terrorizing the neighbors - what was that charming behavior you thought was so normal and expected? Shitting on other people's lawns, was it? What a class act YOU are - until they throw tax money at me. The first is a decent human being, the second is trash like you.

It's instructive to learn that you and yours have done away with such concepts in favor of naked barbarism. What sort of animal skin do you prefer for your loincloth, anyway?

Of course you are joking. I have several loincloths, black bear, lynx, coyote, Buffalo, elk. Which would you prefer to lay it out on?

By all means, rampage through my neighborhood like an uncivilized piece of garbage wearing whichever one that you think your cellmate will prefer.

 

[asterism]

You know, I've never made more than 37,000/yr in my life.

Interestingly enough, 50,000/yr is considered middle class.

Was it a choice to do that? Yes. I thought serving my country was more important than making fat cash. Now? I live at what most would consider poverty level, but, I'm able to live on my retirement, which leaves me time for writing, drawing, philosophy and all the other stuff I wanted to do.

And to tell you the truth? I couldn't be happier. I'm not tied up in all the material wealth that others have. I've got enough to eat, stuff to keep me entertained and a nice bicycle that gets me where I want to go, when I want to go.

Is poverty a state of mind? Yes, if you think you're poor, then you NEVER have enough money. If you think you're well off (and I do, because I don't go hungry), then you're really not interested in anything butting in on your free time, because you're too busy living.

Interestingly enough, no matter how bad my circumstances got, I never drew welfare. However, when I was an E-4 in the Navy, when both my sons were born, my ex wife enrolled in WIC. Why? WIC offers free formula and at E-4 pay, that helps out a LOT.

That is very admirable.

 

[shintao]

I do love people who think it's perfectly acceptable to threaten the rest of the world with savagery unless they're appeased and pacified by sacrifices they have not earned.

Geeze, I shouldn't point out the obvious to people who are too dysfunctional to figure it out for themselves. All of sudden that becomes a "threat." LOL!

Insofar as the "inevitability" of such Neanderthal behavior is only "obvious" to the Neanderthals, yes. It's a threat. As for you calling ANYONE dysfunctional . . .

No other way to described her thinking.


No, I don't understand that at all. Nothing has changed expect the means by which they go about doing the same things.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least you're honest about not understanding decency and dignity. And dumbass, it's the "means by which they go about doing things" where one finds decency and dignity: I get the means to support my life by working hard, or I get it by terrorizing the neighbors - what was that charming behavior you thought was so normal and expected? Shitting on other people's lawns, was it? What a class act YOU are - until they throw tax money at me. The first is a decent human being, the second is trash like you.

Since you obviously do not know anything about human behavior, and have to dip low to misconstrue what I said, then get angry about it, no doubt you are dysfunctional as well. You only wish you could eat my trash, and at the rate your going, your probably will.

It's instructive to learn that you and yours have done away with such concepts in favor of naked barbarism. What sort of animal skin do you prefer for your loincloth, anyway?

Of course you are joking. I have several loincloths, black bear, lynx, coyote, Buffalo, elk. Which would you prefer to lay it out on?

By all means, rampage through my neighborhood like an uncivilized piece of garbage wearing whichever one that you think your cellmate will prefer.

Hmm, no where did I say I would stoop so low as to drive through your gutted neighborhood. LOL!!! More of your inability to conceptualize what has been said, and then get angry about it. I really pity your family.............LMAO!!! Or have they already run away from home?

 

[loosecannon]

Even the poorest Americans have access to resources that were undreamed of by kings 100 years ago, but they are still impoverished.

If you compare how folks live in the rest of the world (Check out Viikii.com for videos from all over to see how the rest of the world lives) you would see, in terms of cash anyway, no one in American is poor.

However, we do have people who are malnourished and always dependent on others for everything.

Poverty is not having a small amount of cash, it is using the cash badly.

Poverty is sexual incontinence, drug dependence, broken homes, lazyness, juggling debt. Under this formulation Lindsy Lohan and Paris Hilton live in poverty.

One can be poor, but not in poverty. Being poor sucks, but is often fate. You can take charge and change it

Poverty is where your behavior sucks, and karma bites you in the ass.

While I find this a very thought-provoking analysis, and quite profound in its way, I am an opponent of redefinition of words (for the most part) and a big fan of word choice precision instead. What you describe is technically what used to be known as "a poverty of morals", back when morals were something desirable.

Something else I found interesting is the actual dictionary definition of the word "poverty":

a : the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

So by this definition, when one looks only at the United States by itself, we DO have financial poverty here, since our "usual or socially acceptable amount" is very different from the rest of the world's.

Tho that was a good post and very thoughtful, several points:

Dictionaries do not define words. They merely catalog the most common public uses of words.

All words meanings are continually being revised, including your selected definition of poverty above.

Almost NOBODY in the US is poor compared to global standards. When compared to historical global standards even moreso.

The words "American" and "Poor" are irreconcilably separated. We have poorer people, more financially and commercially challenged, and horizontally mobile classes. But we really do not have poverty in the US.

When you are born with nothing and die with nothing everything above that threshold is fabulous wealth.

Unearned wealth, I might add.

Let's keep it real, 'k?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even the poorest Americans have access to resources that were undreamed of by kings 100 years ago, but they are still impoverished.

If you compare how folks live in the rest of the world (Check out Viikii.com for videos from all over to see how the rest of the world lives) you would see, in terms of cash anyway, no one in American is poor.

However, we do have people who are malnourished and always dependent on others for everything.

Poverty is not having a small amount of cash, it is using the cash badly.

Poverty is sexual incontinence, drug dependence, broken homes, lazyness, juggling debt. Under this formulation Lindsy Lohan and Paris Hilton live in poverty.

One can be poor, but not in poverty. Being poor sucks, but is often fate. You can take charge and change it

Poverty is where your behavior sucks, and karma bites you in the ass.

While I find this a very thought-provoking analysis, and quite profound in its way, I am an opponent of redefinition of words (for the most part) and a big fan of word choice precision instead. What you describe is technically what used to be known as "a poverty of morals", back when morals were something desirable.

Something else I found interesting is the actual dictionary definition of the word "poverty":

a : the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

So by this definition, when one looks only at the United States by itself, we DO have financial poverty here, since our "usual or socially acceptable amount" is very different from the rest of the world's.

Tho that was a good post and very thoughtful, several points:

Dictionaries do not define words. They merely catalog the most common public uses of words.

All words meanings are continually being revised, including your selected definition of poverty above.

Almost NOBODY in the US is poor compared to global standards. When compared to historical global standards even moreso.

The words "American" and "Poor" are irreconcilably separated. We have poorer people, more financially and commercially challenged, and horizontally mobile classes. But we really do not have poverty in the US.

When you are born with nothing and die with nothing everything above that threshold is fabulous wealth.

Unearned wealth, I might add.

Let's keep it real, 'k?

And the only "reality" allowed is that we must measure our country by a baseline that simply doesn't exist IN our country? How is that "real", except if one wishes to lower expectations?

Your talk about "changing word definitions" notwithstanding, the word "poverty" has meant the same thing since the 12th century. It has always been subjective, measured by what is expected and acceptable in the society in question. While there are certainly uses for measuring on a global scale, it is not at all "real" to suggest that the US should make economic policy decisions based on "fuck it, we're better off than Rwanda, so this'll do".

One wonders in what other areas you would be willing to set US policies based on global standards. Pollution and environmental controls, perhaps? "Global warming" emissions? Access to quality healthcare? Could we just shrug and wave our hands dismissively at declining standards in any of these and say, "On a global scale, it's no big deal"?

 

[Yukon.]

Poverty is a political state of being imposed on minorities by people with a conservative point-of-view. The poor will always be poor unless Liberals help them out of the mire.

 

[loosecannon]

While I find this a very thought-provoking analysis, and quite profound in its way, I am an opponent of redefinition of words (for the most part) and a big fan of word choice precision instead. What you describe is technically what used to be known as "a poverty of morals", back when morals were something desirable.

Something else I found interesting is the actual dictionary definition of the word "poverty":

a : the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

So by this definition, when one looks only at the United States by itself, we DO have financial poverty here, since our "usual or socially acceptable amount" is very different from the rest of the world's.

Tho that was a good post and very thoughtful, several points:

Dictionaries do not define words. They merely catalog the most common public uses of words.

All words meanings are continually being revised, including your selected definition of poverty above.

Almost NOBODY in the US is poor compared to global standards. When compared to historical global standards even moreso.

The words "American" and "Poor" are irreconcilably separated. We have poorer people, more financially and commercially challenged, and horizontally mobile classes. But we really do not have poverty in the US.

When you are born with nothing and die with nothing everything above that threshold is fabulous wealth.

Unearned wealth, I might add.

Let's keep it real, 'k?

And the only "reality" allowed is that we must measure our country by a baseline that simply doesn't exist IN our country? How is that "real", except if one wishes to lower expectations?

Your talk about "changing word definitions" notwithstanding, the word "poverty" has meant the same thing since the 12th century. It has always been subjective, measured by what is expected and acceptable in the society in question. While there are certainly uses for measuring on a global scale, it is not at all "real" to suggest that the US should make economic policy decisions based on "fuck it, we're better off than Rwanda, so this'll do".

One wonders in what other areas you would be willing to set US policies based on global standards. Pollution and environmental controls, perhaps? "Global warming" emissions? Access to quality healthcare? Could we just shrug and wave our hands dismissively at declining standards in any of these and say, "On a global scale, it's no big deal"?

you clearly believe that the government has a compelling interest in eradicating poverty. Even the not really poor by any global or historic standard kind, the relative kind of poverty.

I don't want any part of a government that assumes that responsibility.

Environmental regulation and fair business practices fall under the category of "general welfare" and "defense". Or national security.

The constitution/government can impose a level playing field but it can't impose equal results.

There will be relatively poor always, that's life. And life is better than the alternative.

Born with nothing, die with nothing. And be elated to do so..