Is poverty a number or a behavior?

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

Interesting statistic that has come out recently. The last several years have seen an ever sinking violent crime rate, and despite the fact that unemployment is now higher than at any time in memory, so is violent crime. There is no corealtion between unemployment and criminal activity.

Since you are doing the job you are doing, you are pretty much an expert in poverty and crime. But unemployment and crime is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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..

I never said anything about what I "believe the government has" in terms of poverty. Do us all a favor and don't try to read your own pet prejudices into my words in order to create a chance to get up on your favorite soapbox, okay?

The government has economic policies. They affect the economic status of the people in the country in question. In THIS country, the people have some say over what those policies will be, and they decide on them based on whether they believe those policies will improve their standard of living (they're not always CORRECT, but that's their goal). They do NOT support economic policies based on "Our standard of living will still be higher than [fill in the blank 3rd-world nation]."

I'm just laughing my ass off at the idea that environmental controls are, in your view, more the purview of the federal government than economic policy is, given that 1) government environmental controls ARE PART OF economic policy, in that they directly affect the economy, 2) taxes are part of economic policy, and only government can levy and collect taxes (and that power is granted the federal government right in the Constitution, which says nothing about environmental controls), and 3) the very fact of the government spending money to do anything at all is part of economic policy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I should also point out, LC, that the point remains that in some things, you wish to judge on a strictly Americacentric viewpoint, but when it comes to the economy and standards of living, suddenly we MUST use a global view. Why the double standard?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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"?

Even in the 12th century, everyone was poor. Most everyone lived in mud huts. The lords lived in log cabins.

Even so, back then, when poor was the baseline, poverty was not the state of being poor.

Being poor sucks, and can have all kinds of random causes, but real poverty seems to be a bad response to your circumstances.

A biker sailor had a good post above, where he make the point that in terms of income statistics, he is doing badly, but in terms of personal satisfaction, he is doing quite well. His kids are fed and cared for, he has his needs met, and he is doing well.

Kids born in lower income households are have to deal with low income realities. Kids born in to households where the parents are either missing, drunk, stoned, or abusive are not low income problems, they are life problems.

Being stupid, like Rdean, does not compel you to live in poverty. If you stay sober and live within your means, have a decent diet, you can still have a decent life on a low income.

There is no income high enough that will take care of self destructive behavior.

 

[loosecannon]

Do us all a favor and don't try to read your own pet prejudices into my words in order to create a chance to get up on your favorite soapbox, okay?

in your view, more the purview of the federal government than economic policy is, given that 1) government environmental controls ARE PART OF economic policy, in that they directly affect the economy, 2) taxes are part of economic policy, and only government can levy and collect taxes (and that power is granted the federal government right in the Constitution, which says nothing about environmental controls), and 3) the very fact of the government spending money to do anything at all is part of economic policy.

You should take your own advise, ditz.

Economic policies that redistribute wealth toward parity, which is what your relative definition of poverty entails, are not the agenda of any government I support.

Which doesn't mean that I believe a government that prints it's own currency shouldn't engage in economic policy, ditz.

Whereas environmental policies bear directly upon public safety. Fair business practices general welfare, ditz.

 

[loosecannon]

I should also point out, LC, that the point remains that in some things, you wish to judge on a strictly Americacentric viewpoint, but when it comes to the economy and standards of living, suddenly we MUST use a global view. Why the double standard?

please provide an example I could address on your behalf, ditz.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I should also point out, LC, that the point remains that in some things, you wish to judge on a strictly Americacentric viewpoint, but when it comes to the economy and standards of living, suddenly we MUST use a global view. Why the double standard?

please provide an example I could address on your behalf, ditz.

I already provided a couple, to which you responded with a dodge and an attempt to attribute positions to me which I never claimed. Are you saying that you DO advocate taking a global view on issues like environmental controls, "global warming" emissions, and healthcare standards? Should Americans accept the same "we're still better than the 3rd world" attitude on those subjects that you want to apply to our standard of living? Try to give me something other than "you want the government to control the economy" and name-calling this time around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do us all a favor and don't try to read your own pet prejudices into my words in order to create a chance to get up on your favorite soapbox, okay?

in your view, more the purview of the federal government than economic policy is, given that 1) government environmental controls ARE PART OF economic policy, in that they directly affect the economy, 2) taxes are part of economic policy, and only government can levy and collect taxes (and that power is granted the federal government right in the Constitution, which says nothing about environmental controls), and 3) the very fact of the government spending money to do anything at all is part of economic policy.

You should take your own advise, ditz.

Economic policies that redistribute wealth toward parity, which is what your relative definition of poverty entails, are not the agenda of any government I support.

Please point out to me any place where I have EVER advocated wealth redistribution, let alone any place in this thread where I have even mentioned it, shitforbrains. I have been quite polite and courteous to you so far, but if you want to play it this way, we can do that, too. If the questions are too hard and scary for you and you need to retreat into pretending I'm saying something other than I am, just say so and I'll happily let you crawl off with your tail between your legs.

Which doesn't mean that I believe a government that prints it's own currency shouldn't engage in economic policy, ditz.

It's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't", shitforbrains, let alone a matter of whether or not the government prints currency. A government, by its very existence and fulfillment of its duties, affects the economy. Which you would know, if you weren't so busy trying to run from the fact that your world perspective telescopes in and out according to whatever allows you to view the United States in the most negative light.

Whereas environmental policies bear directly upon public safety. Fair business practices general welfare, ditz.

And "bear directly on public safety" has exactly what to do with what I said, shitforbrains? What is it, precisely, about that phrase that makes you think government micromanagement of the environment is somehow exempt from having your global worldview applied to it, aside from the aforementioned desire to paint the US as negatively as possible?

And while you're at it, shitforbrains, perhaps you could explain three more things to me. First, how "fair business practices" is somehow separate from economic policy. Second, how "fair business practices" falls under the heading of "general welfare", but OTHER economic policies - such as, for example, not taxing people into the poorhouse - do not. And third, when the FUCK did I ever mention fair business practices, that you feel the need to suddenly drag them into the conversation and harp on them? See if you can somehow relate your drivel to the topic at hand, shitforbrains.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

We have a standard of living that is much higher than dirt poor (literally) third world countries. We shouldn't expect people who struggle to feed, clothe and house themselves and their children should reach the level of dying in the streets in America.

 

[MaggieMae]

I will always be of the opinion that the kind of "poverty" seen in urban pockets, such as New Orleans 9th Ward (which was thrust in our faces as a shocking reality check after Katrina), is the result of generation after generation not educated enough in either simple parenting skills or basic reading/writing/arithmetic. When a child's entire world is centered around ignorance, drugs and violence with no chance of outside help, it's rare that the child can escape. And so he/she simply sinks amid the status quo and continues the cycle. When a kid's only chance at a decent primary education is by lottery to attend a charter school, something is terribly, terribly wrong. Breaking that cycle is the key.

 

[loosecannon]

I already provided a couple, to which you responded with a dodge and an attempt to attribute positions to me which I never claimed. Are you saying that you DO advocate taking a global view on issues like environmental controls, "global warming" emissions, and healthcare standards?

yes whenever the goal is to judge the well being of ourselves, sure, why not?

And btw, I dodged nothing, you assumed and projected and were wrong.

 

[loosecannon]

Please point out to me any place where I have EVER advocated wealth redistribution, let alone any place in this thread where I have even mentioned it, shitforbrains.

Look, ditz, when you define poverty in relative terms instead of absolute terms, global terms, or historic terms you are advocating a correction toward the mean, or institutionalized wealth redistribution.

Nuf sed.

 

[loosecannon]

And while you're at it, shitforbrains, perhaps you could explain three more things to me. First, how "fair business practices" is somehow separate from economic policy. Second, how "fair business practices" falls under the heading of "general welfare", but OTHER economic policies - such as, for example, not taxing people into the poorhouse - do not. .

I know you aren't bright but there is a profound difference between tax policy and fair business regulations.

That is self evident to lucid people. They are different things and are managed based on different guiding principles.

Fair business practices fall under the mandate of the general welfare clause. While tax policy derives it's mandate from specific subsections of the const. document. Environmental regs fall under defense and general welfare as well as national security. Which is why they can be interpretted to be authorized despite no direct mention of them by name.