The Poor & Poverty: Is the Right right?

[shintao]

Exactly how can you blame any political party for a terrorist attack? Its ignorant for you to think you can just throw money at people whom often have little intelligent spending knowledge. Whether you give one dollar or all of your money to the poor, in the end you will still be the one sitting on your computer saying, "look at these helpless people lets help them. Its much easier said than done. Don't argue with ignorant statements, argue with facts.

Well, if you want to use facts, bring them, whatever. I just asking a general question about what is going to happen in America when we shut down the social programs? And I am asking for your opinion of what will happen. Do you think the Right is right on this issue? What is it going to change if anything?

Who said anything about "shutting down" social programs?
No, you are not asking a general question. You are not interested in information. You started this thread to elicit a predetermined response from those of us on the political right.
You are looking for answers you want to see so you can stand up and yell, "see I told you so".

Running scared on me huh? Do you or don't you support Article 1, Sec: 8 General Welfare clause to mean using social services for Americans?? Yes or No???

 

[shintao]

Without digging here is one time:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/142609-what-god-said.html


Has any country so far in civilization been able to solve the problem of poverty? I dont think it is right to take from the "rich" and force them to give to the "poor" No matter how "poor" we are in this country, there is always some worse off. Do you take from them and give it to someone else worse off?

I do believe in personal responsibility. Poverty for some is having to do without a cell phone, a bit screen TV, and a play station. If you cant afford luxuries then sorry you're out of luck.

If you cant afford to feed a family then you have the personal responsibility of not having children.

There was a time in this country when didn't expect the government to care for you from birth to grave. I would have it that way again. I think social programs are what has put so many in the situation of needing social programs.

So you would cut the social programs and go the way of the Rabbi. And I think most people headed that way would eventually become frustrated at their failed efforts and give up. What do you think? Would you give up helping the poor, when it just becomes overwhelming? When everybody else just gives up? afterall, is it really your responsibility to care for the poor, or for family members? Someone said to leave your family and start your own. That must mean you have no one to turn back to for help. I myself realize that my efforts are so small they are insignificant in this universe, that I could do nothing and have the same impact on my fellow men. But I also know that if I had a billion dollars I would have no use for it, I would still be giving it away to those I feel need it most. I have a young relative that was a complete fuck up, and I worked with him trying to get him job oriented and taking responsibility for himself. My relatives are not the best people to be raising children. In any event I bought him a Camero, and gave him the keys, but told him if he wanted the cheese he had to keep insurance on the car and that meant getting a steady job. That snapped him, and he has been working ever since, has a good job in distributing warehouse. Sometimes it takes a big shove. Sometimes it takes putting a person in isolation from his old habits and giving him news ones, like good work ethics, a warm bed & shower & hot meals and clean clothes, etc. I have a ranch and a two bed farm house on it here in CA., and I have helped a few homeless put their lives back together out there. It is really not that hard to do. People just need a purpose in life, and there is nothing better than being self-sufficient and responsible for yourself, so the job is the means to self-esteem and personal worth. I bought some steel toed boots for guy who had a job at steel plant if he could just get the safety items he needed for the job. I don't know how that worked for him, but hopefully good. I retired in 1990 at 45 years old, so I have time to do things for people, that those working don't have. I just try to give back to society what it has given to me. And for that I am a Liberal and socialist and humanitarian, which seems to rake chalk on a board for rightys. LOL!

I would not totally cut off social programs. I would have them slash them all to the bone. I would also make it more appealing to work then not to work to "make a living" As far as i can see there are to many people institutionalized into social programs and there is NO incentive to get out. Those on social program hand outs need to be more accountable.

No help is insignificant. If people do what they can then that is enough.

People need to know how to work, so are we going to train them? And why aren't those receiving not contributing back into society? I would think if you really slashed the social programs, that would be incentive to get off and get a job, or get a job and be subsidized to make it.

Conservatives don't like the idea of adding more social programs to get America working. They wouldn't pay for training or placement or apprenticeships. They just don't want another social system involved. They want to barely feed the dog until he starves or bites your hand. So for 99 weeks unemployed Americans have sat on their ass, instead of being trained into employment positions.

 

[syrenn]

So you would cut the social programs and go the way of the Rabbi. And I think most people headed that way would eventually become frustrated at their failed efforts and give up. What do you think? Would you give up helping the poor, when it just becomes overwhelming? When everybody else just gives up? afterall, is it really your responsibility to care for the poor, or for family members? Someone said to leave your family and start your own. That must mean you have no one to turn back to for help. I myself realize that my efforts are so small they are insignificant in this universe, that I could do nothing and have the same impact on my fellow men. But I also know that if I had a billion dollars I would have no use for it, I would still be giving it away to those I feel need it most. I have a young relative that was a complete fuck up, and I worked with him trying to get him job oriented and taking responsibility for himself. My relatives are not the best people to be raising children. In any event I bought him a Camero, and gave him the keys, but told him if he wanted the cheese he had to keep insurance on the car and that meant getting a steady job. That snapped him, and he has been working ever since, has a good job in distributing warehouse. Sometimes it takes a big shove. Sometimes it takes putting a person in isolation from his old habits and giving him news ones, like good work ethics, a warm bed & shower & hot meals and clean clothes, etc. I have a ranch and a two bed farm house on it here in CA., and I have helped a few homeless put their lives back together out there. It is really not that hard to do. People just need a purpose in life, and there is nothing better than being self-sufficient and responsible for yourself, so the job is the means to self-esteem and personal worth. I bought some steel toed boots for guy who had a job at steel plant if he could just get the safety items he needed for the job. I don't know how that worked for him, but hopefully good. I retired in 1990 at 45 years old, so I have time to do things for people, that those working don't have. I just try to give back to society what it has given to me. And for that I am a Liberal and socialist and humanitarian, which seems to rake chalk on a board for rightys. LOL!

I would not totally cut off social programs. I would have them slash them all to the bone. I would also make it more appealing to work then not to work to "make a living" As far as i can see there are to many people institutionalized into social programs and there is NO incentive to get out. Those on social program hand outs need to be more accountable.

No help is insignificant. If people do what they can then that is enough.

People need to know how to work, so are we going to train them? And why aren't those receiving not contributing back into society? I would think if you really slashed the social programs, that would be incentive to get off and get a job, or get a job and be subsidized to make it.

Conservatives don't like the idea of adding more social programs to get America working. They wouldn't pay for training or placement or apprenticeships. They just don't want another social system involved. They want to barely feed the dog until he starves or bites your hand. So for 99 weeks unemployed Americans have sat on their ass, instead of being trained into employment positions.

It doesn't take training to be a walmart greeter. It doesn't take training to pull weeds or cut grass. It doesn't take training to clean toilets, push a broom or pick vegetables in the fields. It doesn't take training to work in a fast food place. The problem is that a good deal of Americans think jobs like this are beneath them.

How long do you subsidize someone? How long do you hold their hands?

 

[bag]

The rich don't have enough money, even if you confiscated it all, to prevent poverty.

<buzzer> wrong. but the solution is not to overtax the rich, just tax them fairly.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "Right" i.e. true Conservatives are usually the most generous in charitable giving of all sociopolitical groups, so it is incorrect to say they 'don't care about the poor' or 'we should forget about the poor.'

The bottom line for many conservatives is that charity should be a local concern, hands on, one on one, or from the heart. The government is positively the worst mechanism to manage charity as it is too big, too inefficient, too expensive--it syphons off as much as 2/3rds or more of every dollar it receives--and when the federal government is in the business of charity it is corrupting for both those in government and the beneficiaries of the charity.

So the question should not be whether 'the right' thinks we should forget about the poor. The question should be: "How does the right think the poor are best taken care of?"

 

[snjmom]

The "Right" i.e. true Conservatives are usually the most generous in charitable giving of all sociopolitical groups, so it is incorrect to say they 'don't care about the poor' or 'we should forget about the poor.'

The bottom line for many conservatives is that charity should be a local concern, hands on, one on one, or from the heart. The government is positively the worst mechanism to manage charity as it is too big, too inefficient, too expensive--it syphons off as much as 2/3rds or more of every dollar it receives--and when the federal government is in the business of charity it is corrupting for both those in government and the beneficiaries of the charity.

So the question should not be whether 'the right' thinks we should forget about the poor. The question should be: "How does the right think the poor are best taken care of?"

Just caveat or two. Most conservative giving is support for their local religious institution, which may or may not reach out to the soup kitchen poor. Very little of that kind of charity, ie church building fund, has any real effect on alleviating the worst indignities of poverty and most religious organizations are dead set against the primary way out of poverty, the ability of a woman to have absolute control over family size without forced celibacy.

Second, the most expensive form of charity is the intensive individual approach. The absolute inability of local concerns to address the issue of the poor and the hideously expensive methods of foundling homes for their children and poor houses for the adults to clear the rabble from the streets is the very reason the federal government got involved to begin with. It is much cheaper to feed with food stamps and house in Sec 8 than it is to institutionalize those that can't find enough work or a wage to sustain them. Unless we are willing to radically change our building and residential codes.

Now, if it was up to me, I would just require sterilization of both parents to acquire benefits. This would contribute greatly to a reduction in the cost of programs. When they can afford the reversal, they won't need the programs anymore.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what policies does the capitalist want to institute to overcome all the social programs you want to get rid of??

Have you really not been paying attention here? We want policies that reward hard work, ingenuity and enterprise. Currently we have the opposite.
Which social programs do I want to get rid of? This will be interesting since I've never posted any.

Ok, a policy that rewards hard work. How does the policy do that? Does farmer Brown get rewarded for plowing the field? How does the policy work. If the corporation is already cut to bone, where does this reward come from? The government?

How does the ingenuity policy work? Is this a government funded reward of some kind? Having ingenuity is only a small part of production, the idea alone doesn't make it work. Where would the working capital come from if the corporation is already cut to the bone.

Generally you do that by getting government the hell out of the way and letting capitalism do its thing. Of course a lefty like you must think in terms of government programs to reward this or that. You'll be glad to know there is no need for any of this. Indeed, it would defeat the whole purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Government does not give you all of what you want.

Yes, exactly, and there are millions in poverty, poor, homeless, etc. to prove you are right. And with all the lobbyists it is clear that even when you are wealthy the government doesn't give you everything they want. It just isn't going to happen.

Tell you what slick, you want the Federal Government to pay for all the poor? Get an amendment passed authorizing the Federal Government to do so. As it stands right now they HAVE NO AUTHORITY to spend our tax dollars on your save the poor theme.

Before you do that read a little history on what happened to every Nation or empire in the past that succumbed to alms for the poor. The dole is what brought them down. People learned real quick, why work when the Government will just pay me to sit on my lazy ass and do nothing. Suddenly the poor out numbered those working and paying taxes. And it just kept getting worse.

And before your stupid ass claims I just said the poor were all lazy, take a fucking class on reading comprehension.

 

[Newby]

The Right is usually Wrong, so we had 911, two wars, the Gulf Slick, failed economy, etc.

My question is about poverty. Are the Right correct this time, that we should forget the poor and homeless, or is this just another Right being Wrong issue? What would happen to the poor and rich in America if we eliminated all social programs tomorrow? Would it end up costing us more, or less?

I ask because the prisons are already filled with Americans who wanted more, not less out of life. And it is logical the poor are going to eat and have other human needs they want fulfilled.

On the other hand the rich would have more money in their pockets to invest in themselves, but not necessarily in jobs or products. They don't tell us why they want so much money they can never spend it in a lifetime or a thousand generations of their offspring. Perhaps if they did it would be easier to understand why dumping the poor is such a good idea afterall. And why the Right might be Right on this issue.

Exactly how can you blame any political party for a terrorist attack? Its ignorant for you to think you can just throw money at people whom often have little intelligent spending knowledge. Whether you give one dollar or all of your money to the poor, in the end you will still be the one sitting on your computer saying, "look at these helpless people lets help them. Its much easier said than done. Don't argue with ignorant statements, argue with facts.

Well, if you want to use facts, bring them, whatever. I just asking a general question about what is going to happen in America when we shut down the social programs? And I am asking for your opinion of what will happen. Do you think the Right is right on this issue? What is it going to change if anything?

What happened in America BEFORE there were any social programs? There was a time there weren't any, and people managed to survive. I wonder how that happened?

 

[editec]

Eliminate all social programs tomorrow and watch how quickly the economy and then the whole damned society unravels.

Economies cannot stand sudden changes to the way things work.

neither can societies.

So if we want to eliminate all social programs my advice is that we do it slowly enough for the society and the economy to deal with it.

WElfare ( that real wefare that most of you right wingers so hate) amounts to help to about 4 million Americans.

Yeah, that's right the number is small in comparison to the population as a whole.

But it's all those other social service programs that would ALSO be eliminated that I think would rattle the system significantly.

Eliminate Food stamps, and housing and not only would those people be in trouble, but their troubles would resonate right on through the economy as the stores that service them do down, the landlords that formerly got their chapter 8 housing would go down, too.

Then too, there's the whole question of how much crime might increase as desperate people sought to find the means of survival.

And that WOULD effect most of us, I think.

Do the right wingers care?

I think they would if they got their way.

Any saving we might enjoy would, I think, be lost building prisons, and lost due to the many costs associated with crime.

Sad but true.

We either pay people to make it, or we pay to keep them from taking it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Eliminate all social programs tomorrow and watch how quickly the economy and then the whole damned society unravels.

Economies cannot stand sudden changes to the way things work.

neither can societies.

So if we want to eliminate all social programs my advice is that we do it slowly enough for the society and the economy to deal with it.

WElfare ( that real wefare that most of you right wingers so hate) amounts to help to about 4 million Americans.

Yeah, that's right the number is small in comparison to the population as a whole.

But it's all those other social service programs that would ALSO be eliminated that I think would rattle the system significantly.

Eliminate Food stamps, and housing and not only would those people be in trouble, but their troubles would resonate right on through the economy as the stores that service them do down, the landlords that formerly got their chapter 8 housing would go down, too.

Then too, there's the whole question of how much crime might increase as desperate people sought to find the means of survival.

And that WOULD effect most of us, I think.

Do the right wingers care?

I think they would if they got their way.

Any saving we might enjoy would, I think, be lost building prisons, and lost due to the many costs associated with crime.

Sad but true.

We either pay people to make it, or we pay to keep them from taking it.

Straw man. Who's talking about eliminating ALL social welfare programs TOMORROW?
People said pretty much the same thing ahead of Bill Clinton's welfare reform, people would be living in the streets etc. But as I've said, people are resourceful. Most of them took advantage of transition programs and child care opportunities to land themselves actual jobs. A nd their whole attitude towards work and spendng changed as a result.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, if you want to use facts, bring them, whatever. I just asking a general question about what is going to happen in America when we shut down the social programs? And I am asking for your opinion of what will happen. Do you think the Right is right on this issue? What is it going to change if anything?

Who said anything about "shutting down" social programs?
No, you are not asking a general question. You are not interested in information. You started this thread to elicit a predetermined response from those of us on the political right.
You are looking for answers you want to see so you can stand up and yell, "see I told you so".

Running scared on me huh? Do you or don't you support Article 1, Sec: 8 General Welfare clause to mean using social services for Americans?? Yes or No???

No I do not. It is not a clause granting the Government any specific power and read the fucking Constitution it is no where general in nature. In fact the founders INSISTED that the Constitution as written needed no Bill of Rights BECAUSE it was so limited and only granted SPECIFIC powers to the Federal Government.

If the so called general clause existed there would be NO power the Federal Government could not usurp claiming it was in the General welfare of the Country.

Now YOU cite for us a SINGLE law passed EVER that claimed to use the General Welfare as its justification.

 

[Granny]

The "Right" i.e. true Conservatives are usually the most generous in charitable giving of all sociopolitical groups, so it is incorrect to say they 'don't care about the poor' or 'we should forget about the poor.'

The bottom line for many conservatives is that charity should be a local concern, hands on, one on one, or from the heart. The government is positively the worst mechanism to manage charity as it is too big, too inefficient, too expensive--it syphons off as much as 2/3rds or more of every dollar it receives--and when the federal government is in the business of charity it is corrupting for both those in government and the beneficiaries of the charity.

So the question should not be whether 'the right' thinks we should forget about the poor. The question should be: "How does the right think the poor are best taken care of?"

Just caveat or two. Most conservative giving is support for their local religious institution, which may or may not reach out to the soup kitchen poor. Very little of that kind of charity, ie church building fund, has any real effect on alleviating the worst indignities of poverty and most religious organizations are dead set against the primary way out of poverty, the ability of a woman to have absolute control over family size without forced celibacy.

Second, the most expensive form of charity is the intensive individual approach. The absolute inability of local concerns to address the issue of the poor and the hideously expensive methods of foundling homes for their children and poor houses for the adults to clear the rabble from the streets is the very reason the federal government got involved to begin with. It is much cheaper to feed with food stamps and house in Sec 8 than it is to institutionalize those that can't find enough work or a wage to sustain them. Unless we are willing to radically change our building and residential codes.

Now, if it was up to me, I would just require sterilization of both parents to acquire benefits. This would contribute greatly to a reduction in the cost of programs. When they can afford the reversal, they won't need the programs anymore.

1. Women do have absolute control over family size - they can keep their legs closed or use any one of a good number of contraceptives. Churches (and others) are not opposed to birth control - they are opposed to abortion. Actually, I'll add the caveat that where the Catholic Church is concerned, the Pope isn't standing at the pharmacy door or the bedroom door - use your head. If you can't feed 15 children, don't have them. There is no venial nor mortal sin in using your head for the right reasons.

2. Foundling homes and poor houses had little to do with it. Welfare was instituted by FDR around the time of the Great Depression. While it may have been intended as a temporary solution, like all government programs, it has ballooned into a financial morass of permanent income passed from one generation to the next. There is no incentive to get off welfare and it has become, in essence, a means of keeping people "in their place" - permanently enslaved to government. Works well when the goal of the progressive/socialist mindset is for government control over everything and everyone.

3. How does your forced sterilization solution square with your idea that women should have absolute control over family size?

 

[Flopper]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million. Most of these people receive some sort of government assistance. Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income, these people spend every cent they get so one the first things you would see would be a reduction in consumption which would be felt by every community in the country. Since most programs that deal with poverty are administered on local level, you would have a great pressure on local government to deal with the problem. Some local government would respond, others would not creating a migration of poor similar to the great depression. Lastly there would be major increase in crime. People who can not feed themselves and the family will do whatever is needed to survive.

What is the definition of poverty? One car and a cell phone?
The "wealthy" (whoever that is) pay taxes on income. So that comment is just class warfare bullshit.
You would see a reduction in consumption of 40oz beers and Black N Mild cigars. That's bad how?
We have plenty of food in this country. No one is going to starve.
But again we see the liberal mistrust of people as hordes of hungry zombies.

What is the definition of poverty? One car and a cell phone?

The government has defined the poverty level for over 40 years. Each year the Dept of Health and Human Service publishes the poverty guides. There are approximate 43 million people or 1 in 7 Americans that fall into this category. The 2009 poverty guidelines are:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is fantastic.
So....Let me get this straight. We must continue, at great expense, to fund social welfare programs so that poor people, who are in your words far more prone to violence and criminal behavior, can be kept "in line"?
Holy shit!

And of course we know he is talking about black people, which makes him a racist.

Nah, I don't think black people wouldn't be much of the problem. They have learned how to survive on the streets and lived in poverty. You are not thinking big enough Taz. Your problem is going to be millions of desperate white folks that have to eat, and have mouths to feed. The ones that haven't known being without yet. The desperate ones that have low paying jobs and government was subsiding their home and food bills.

And I don't think you need to keep social spending up, but I have a good idea what will happen if you don't. I said it at the start of this thread, People are going to eat, People are going to have their needs taken care of. Now the Rabbi thinks if government doesn't do it, you will. I am just saying if you don't, what is a possible logical outcome.

The issue is not social spending in and of itself. The problem is the bureuarcracy.
I takes nearly half over every dollar collected to administer social spending programs.
That is outrageous.
If social programs were to be acceptable, the government needs to reduce the cost of the programs. Unfortunately, so much of the money collected goes to waste on level upon level of red tape managed by people who's only goal is to keep their job. After all, government service is very lucrative. High salaries, benefits and pension that are the envy of the private sector.

 

[California Girl]

The Right is usually Wrong, so we had 911, two wars, the Gulf Slick, failed economy, etc.

My question is about poverty. Are the Right correct this time, that we should forget the poor and homeless, or is this just another Right being Wrong issue? What would happen to the poor and rich in America if we eliminated all social programs tomorrow? Would it end up costing us more, or less?

I ask because the prisons are already filled with Americans who wanted more, not less out of life. And it is logical the poor are going to eat and have other human needs they want fulfilled.

On the other hand the rich would have more money in their pockets to invest in themselves, but not necessarily in jobs or products. They don't tell us why they want so much money they can never spend it in a lifetime or a thousand generations of their offspring. Perhaps if they did it would be easier to understand why dumping the poor is such a good idea afterall. And why the Right might be Right on this issue.

I am impressed that you can squeeze so much total bullshit into one post. Seriously, well done. Pity that you lack any intellect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million. Most of these people receive some sort of government assistance. Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income, these people spend every cent they get so one the first things you would see would be a reduction in consumption which would be felt by every community in the country. Since most programs that deal with poverty are administered on local level, you would have a great pressure on local government to deal with the problem. Some local government would respond, others would not creating a migration of poor similar to the great depression. Lastly there would be major increase in crime. People who can not feed themselves and the family will do whatever is needed to survive.

What is the definition of poverty? One car and a cell phone?
The "wealthy" (whoever that is) pay taxes on income. So that comment is just class warfare bullshit.
You would see a reduction in consumption of 40oz beers and Black N Mild cigars. That's bad how?
We have plenty of food in this country. No one is going to starve.
But again we see the liberal mistrust of people as hordes of hungry zombies.

There are so many people who spend their money unwisely. Instead of taking care of their needs, they satisfy their wants.
I see people of meager means walk into a convenience store and purchase tobacco and alcohol products with handfuls of dollar bills and change. HUH?!!!!
I have been to people's homes to install satellite system for two or more tv's. These people live in single wide trailers. There is a large flat panel tv in the living room and a $40,000 dually pickup truck outside.
The most prevalent aspect of those in poverty is a lack of sound priorities and personal responsibility.
Yes, there are poor people that own rather posses expensive vehicles they acquired from "buy here pay here" auto lots that will extend credit to just about anyone. Yep they can get a buyer a $300 per month payment. At 25% interest over a 7 or 8 year term.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard " I let the car go back"...In other words, they couldn't pay the loan and allowed the vehicle to be repossessed.
This unwise use of limited capital keeps poor people poor.
There may no longer be a housing market for "sub prime" borrowers, but there is most certainly a sub prime market for auto buyers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million. Most of these people receive some sort of government assistance. Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income, these people spend every cent they get so one the first things you would see would be a reduction in consumption which would be felt by every community in the country. Since most programs that deal with poverty are administered on local level, you would have a great pressure on local government to deal with the problem. Some local government would respond, others would not creating a migration of poor similar to the great depression. Lastly there would be major increase in crime. People who can not feed themselves and the family will do whatever is needed to survive.

What is the definition of poverty? One car and a cell phone?
The "wealthy" (whoever that is) pay taxes on income. So that comment is just class warfare bullshit.
You would see a reduction in consumption of 40oz beers and Black N Mild cigars. That's bad how?
We have plenty of food in this country. No one is going to starve.
But again we see the liberal mistrust of people as hordes of hungry zombies.

What is the definition of poverty? One car and a cell phone?

The government has defined the poverty level for over 40 years. Each year the Dept of Health and Human Service publishes the poverty guides. There are approximate 43 million people or 1 in 7 Americans that fall into this category. The 2009 poverty guidelines are:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

I believe this excludes non-cash assistance programs like WIC, Section 8 and the like. Also money earned under the table and not reported.
Needless to say, I'd ratehr be below poverty line in the United States than middle class in Zimbabwe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, if you want to use facts, bring them, whatever. I just asking a general question about what is going to happen in America when we shut down the social programs? And I am asking for your opinion of what will happen. Do you think the Right is right on this issue? What is it going to change if anything?

Who said anything about "shutting down" social programs?
No, you are not asking a general question. You are not interested in information. You started this thread to elicit a predetermined response from those of us on the political right.
You are looking for answers you want to see so you can stand up and yell, "see I told you so".

Running scared on me huh? Do you or don't you support Article 1, Sec: 8 General Welfare clause to mean using social services for Americans?? Yes or No???

Ahh yes. The general welfare clause.
And this has to do what with wasteful and expensive social program bureaucracy?
Look again. The general welfare clause says....provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Nowhere does that state or imply the federal government is supposed to "provide welfare".
Nor does it state the federal government has the power to compel the people to purchase a product(Obamacare).
Now you will argue the notion of a "living Constitution".
Can't have it both ways.

 

[Flopper]

Today you are talking about 1 in 7 Americans that live in poverty, about 43 million.

Aside from the homeless, there are no Americans living in poverty.

Unlike the wealthy that bank their tax free income

Another myth. Nobody gets wealthy by banking their income.

Wealth and poverty are subjective terms open to interpretation. A millionaire may consider himself poor because of his expenses. A low income earner may consider himself wealthy because of his assets. The government publishes poverty guidelines to eliminate the subjectivity. However, I think you would find that most people would categorical a family of 4 attempting to live on $22K a year as poor. What financial aid, if any that family would qualify for is dependent on state and federal rules. So no it is not just the homeless that live in poverty. We have millions of people that make up the working poor that can not make enough money to support their family. In addition we have millions that are physically or mental disable, illiterate, emotion unstable, institutionalized, or for other reasons can't hold down the lowest of jobs.

It's a pretty well know fact that the poor spend all their income while the wealthy save and invest that part of their income not needed for living expenses. To the extent that their investments actually actually stimulate growth and create jobs, we say it's good for the economy. However, when the outlook is not good for the US economy, which is always the case during a recession, most of those investment dollars end up in treasury bills or overseas investments.