Understanding the wealth of the poor

[Intense]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

They even have running water!!! Bastards!!!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Federal state and local spending on the poor totals $6 trillion a year, every year, year in and year out; apparently forever. This means that every year the government spends, on the poor, 6 times what the the top 400 Americans have been able to accumulate over many generations. Or, not to confuse liberals, this means the poor have, in effect, a net wealth of $100 trillion in order that the government can generate $6 trillion yearly from it in welfare payments of various sorts for the poor. $100 trillion is far more than $1.5 trillion( the net worth of the top 400 Americans).


And lets not forget that America's poor are rich in other ways beyond what liberal welfare provides:

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 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 three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical 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 three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than 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 middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

What you, and so many like who who parrot these kinds of arguments, is that poverty is a relative thing to one's society. Let's take the issue of car ownership as an example. In Germany and some other European nations, many well to do middle class people do not own cars. Yet there are people in the US who are comparatively much poorer who do. Why? Because in Germany car ownership is not the same as in the US. There, cars tend to be more expensive. Insurance is more expensive. Gas is much more expensive. Just getting your license can be a big expense (as much as $3000). And on top of all that, the structure of their society does not have the transportation needs as that of the US. There are significant alternatives that aren't available, or aren't feasible in the US. So, as a result, car ownership among the American poor is not a reflection of not being "truly" poor. It's a reflection of an entirely different set of needs than the poor of other countries.

Even here in the US, there is plenty of diversity on this particular point. In NYC, many sufficiently comfortable people (income wise) do not own cars for a variety of reasons. It's more significantly more expensive in NYC to even keep a car and to utilize it for travel. There is widespread public transportation that can both be more cost effective and often produce more functional results, while having greater accessibility to one's needs, like grocery stores, etc. A poor person, or a middle class person, can usually get to work more easily and cheaply by relying on public transit than owning and keeping a car of one's own.

Yet in very rural areas in the US, public transportation can be virtually nonexistent while the need to travel is quite high. The closest grocery store might be 15 miles away. Without a car, a person would have to spend 8-9 hrs just to make a trip to the grocery store on foot, or pay probably around $30-$40 for a cab ride. Hell, that's already a month's worth of car insurance. So, in such an area having a car is much more necessary in order to do basic things like obtain food and go to work, which might be another 20 mile distance.

Overcrowding is another one I'll hit. In the US, most states have maximum occupancy laws which are often more strict that many other countries. Landlords are often firm on these things because the landlord can often be held accountable for willing allowing tenants to violate these regulations. Not only that, but overcrowding can lead to CPS becoming involved and taking your kids away. So the fact that most American poor do not live in overcrowded circumstances just goes to show that they are abiding by the law and doing everything they can to be responsible enough to take care of their kids.

You also mention alot of other things that you seem to find remarkable that poor people could own. But you say nothing about the quality of those possessions. Just because a poor American owns a car does not mean they own a brand new Navigator. It's often possible to find old, beat up, cars available for $500 or sometimes less. And as I mentioned before, when we consider the necessity of farther reaching travel ability and the expenses that public transportation could entail, we should expect that many poor will own cars, since they are available at relatively low prices and are an investment that would quickly pay for itself considering the alternatives. Why you specifically mention color TVs is beyond me (I can't remember the last time I saw a black and white TV available for sale, and I'm pretty sure that they aren't even manufactured anymore). But the fact that they have TVs again does not mean that they have 46 inch flat screens. As a matter of fact, just this past weekend I went to a local Good Will store and bought a small 15 inch TV for $15 for my bedroom. At a yard sale I'm sure you could find something liek that even cheaper. I'm really puzzled too by your bringing up VCRs. You do realize that you're talking about obsolete technology here, right? Even DVD players can be bought relatively cheap, especially if they're used. None of these is remarkable for poor Americans to possess.

Another thing you fail to address is how long it took to acquire these things. If we take 3 used TVs at $15 a piece, a used DVD player for $40, a used microwave for $30 (which helps to minimize waste by making it easier to reheat leftovers and doing so more energy efficiently too), that's a grand total of $115. For all you know, it might take these people 2-3 years to save up the money for these things. You also fail to address how they acquired these things. For all you know, many or even all of these things could have been gifts or hand-me-downs from a more wealthy friend or family member or neighbor. As we know, the American people are very generous. Yet you would presume that these things immediately mean that a person is not "truly" poor just because they've been blessed with the kindness of others.

The air conditioning point is really almost silly, for much of the same reasons already addressed. Air conditioning does not necessarily mean central air or that the home is fully air conditioned. For all you know we're talking about a few widow units in select areas of the house (usually what happens is that a poor family might have a window unit in the kids bedrooms to help them sleep comfortably, and maybe even in the parents room also depending on their specific circumstances) while the rest of the house is perpetually warm. You also fail to recognize (perhaps you don't know) that in some states AC is considered a necessity just like heat, and a home MUST be equipped with AC to be considered livable by the law. This generally happens in warmer southern states, like Texas for example, which also happens to be where a greater portion of our country's poor people live.

The final point I'm going to hit for now (because this has become rather long) is the home ownership. At this point I think my analysis speaks for itself and the same concepts can be applied, but I think it deserves mentioning because many people might look at it and thing that home ownership is a big enough deal to warrant a family being considered no longer in poverty. But again, you don't talk about quality. Many poor people own their own trailer home, for example, but that hardly compares to a middle class person who owns a full house, or even one who rents a full house. You also fail to consider the potential for a person or family to fall into poverty after already owning all of the things you've mentioned. There are lots of things that can cause a person to fall into poverty after earlier affluence. Surely the economic times show us how easy it can be to get caught as the hapless victim of a bad economy. The death of a spouse can create significant economic hardships. Sudden illness of either parent or child could wrack up medical bills and could contribute to job loss from absence or inability to work. Suddenly, this family that was previously comfortably middle class and had acquired a few material possessions could very well be very much in poverty.

In conclusion, the issues you raise (I should say the stuff you copied and pasted, because I've seen this exact list elsewhere before) are not actual indicators of poverty. Your interpretation of poverty and how to measure it is based on a lack of knowledge or understanding of how poverty is measured and exists within societies. You might be well inclined to become educated before you make claims about poor people not actually being poor, because the truth is that you just don't know the first thing about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

1. One minute the 'nuts are proclaiming that the poverty programs have been a complete failure, and,

2. the next minute they're complaining that our poor people are too well off.

jesus christ on a bicycle! lolol

 

[Intense]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

1. One minute the 'nuts are proclaiming that the poverty programs have been a complete failure, and,

2. the next minute they're complaining that our poor people are too well off.

jesus christ on a bicycle! lolol

Obviously Someone is being played here. How about you turn "Maury" off for a minute, and contemplate who? Dependency requires what effort? What is given in return, again?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This thread just confirms what I've said many times before -

Conservatives are pissed off because America's poor just aren't poor enough.

....And, just might be competition for JOBS (and, political-influence)....in the Future!!!!

*

Has there ever BEEN a group, MORE lazy than bigoted/racist-Whites??!!!

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Poverty should never be comfortable. When we pay people to be poor, we will have only more poor. They take it from a temporary circumstance into a lifestyle choice.

Yeah....I guess the Poor simply haven't (yet) learned to be....

....BIGGER fuck-ups!!!

 

[Intense]

The working poor should not have to be paying for Cell Phone Minutes for the Professional Federal Assistance Scam Artist. It's that simple.

 

[Claudette]

Do you support ending all programs that aid the poor/low income Americans?

Will they then magically find prosperity somewhere? Or will they be more like the poor in the third world, in places like Africa, like the poor in India, or various other places where the government and those who are better off do little or nothing on behalf of the poor?

How does this program of neglect work exactly to make things better?

Yes I do support ending all programs. The more you give folks the more they want. If it were just a case of a helping hand that would be one thing. Unfortuntely once they sign on for the freebies they dont' want to stop. Why should they??

Before the 30's there was no welfare. People had it hard but they survived. My parents grew up during the depression and they survived. Nobody depended on the Govt to take care of em. They took care of themselves. In fact my parents would have laughed to think that the Govt was going to provide for them.

Today we have generations that depend on the Govt for their livlihood. They could care less where the money comes from as long as it comes. They have no incentive to live any other way.

Ok, so in your world, no children get healthcare if their parents are too poor to pay for it because there will be no more Medicaid.

How will that make America a better place?

There are such things as charities you know. They are alive and well here n America even though they are overshadowed by the Govt Social programs.

Many of the "evil rich" give quite extensively to and support many charities across the country.

There is also the Shriners, St. Judes, Arnold Palmer and many oher charitable hospitals that turn no one away.

As for making America a better place?? I think it will be once the Govt handouts stop and people realize that hey, we're gonna have to take care of ourselves. We can get charitable help but not that Govt check every month. They will have to assume responsibility for their lives once more.

 

[Care4all]

the TANF welfare rolls of the federal gvt reduced yearly welfare recipients by over 50%....the wefare reform of Newt and Clinton in 1996 has worked quite well...even the state programs for welfare, reduced by 50% since the welfare reform bill was passed in 1996.....the study I looked at was for 2006....

since then, we have had the recession and high unemployment and these rolls have risen....but I would NOT blame these poor people for the recession and not being able to get employment....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah I'd say the poor aren't doing badly in this country.

Most of em don't pay any Fed income taxes yet they enyoy the largess of those of us that do.

They also have no need to change their life style. I mean why should they?? A free ride is much better than having to pay for anything.

Do you support ending all programs that aid the poor/low income Americans?

Will they then magically find prosperity somewhere? Or will they be more like the poor in the third world, in places like Africa, like the poor in India, or various other places where the government and those who are better off do little or nothing on behalf of the poor?

How does this program of neglect work exactly to make things better?

Less competition for those, BORN-to-lead!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

^That right there is all we need to know. You should make that the Republican rallying cry to recruit blacks: Vote for us and we'll make it like 1950 all over again!

Of course no one could restore the integrity of the black community. They don't want it. They would rather have an illegitimacy rate of 80%, black men spending their most productive years committing crimes or being in prison. Black people would rather have their young murdering grandma for her social security check to use for crack. They don't mind children calling their mothers ho's. Most times that's what they are anyway. They have had a couple of generations to perfect victimhood. They got civil rights, but really lost their integrity as a people, individually and collectively. I remember 1950 and 1960. I remember black people as suffering but capable of honor. That's gone. It's true, blacks did not have it better in 1950. They were simply better people. Now their communities and families are destroyed. There is no safe haven even in their own homes. They lost that and life is much worse for black people today than it was in the 50s.

Was it a good trade off?

I remember the days of the civil rights movement. I remember them quite well. The anticipation was that blacks would have their rights as human beings restored to them and USE that for their benefit. No one expected the rallying cry of civil rights used to justify illegitimate births, robbery, murder and drug addiction.

Seriously, you should make this your rallying cry for the 2012 election! Blacks didn't use civil rights to their benefit! What a great campaign slogan. Shout it loud and proud to both black candidates in the presidential election.

But oh no - of COURSE there are no racists among the right. No sir-ree bob!

Welllllllllllllllll.......none that you can SEE!!!!!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Dependency requires what effort? What is given in return, again?

That has absolutely no relevance to what you quoted.

 

[ladyliberal]

Thanks for adding the link to the Heritage study in the original post. It doesn't seem to address the $6 trillion figure, so I and a number of other posters are still waiting on that.

I regard Heritage as a partisan organization, but they do perform research and their work here does have references (but not, say peer review). The central point, that poor people in the contemporary US do substantially better than poor people of earlier generations or poor people in most other countries, is unassailable. However, they also engage in a fair amount of overreaching:

-- Biased sampling. The numbers come from the Census Bureau's American Housing Survey. They don't describe their full methodology, but they vastly undersample the poorest groups, including undocumented residents and the homeless.

-- Failure to examine costs. A video-game system might be a luxury, but it is only a small fraction of the costs of necessities such as food, shelter, health care.

-- No consideration of quality of goods. The report claims that the "typical poor person" has access to "medical care". Does that mean good health insurance, or does that mean there's an emergency room to which he can go? Is his microwave a luxury model (almost certainly not) or is it like the one I got off of Craig's list for $15?

-- Failure to distinguish between labor-saving/productivity devices and novelties. It's not clear how a working poor person could be more efficient by giving up their microwave, refrigerator, or cell phone.

-- Deliberately misleading comparisons. The report compares living space of poor Americans to city-dwellers in other countries, failing to correct for the urban/rural divide. It also fails to note that certain technologies have gotten cheaper, leading to their more widespread adoption now than in previous generations.

-- Poor sourcing? I can't find anywhere in the report cited where "dvd", "vcr" or "video" appears, and "television" appears only to note that it is not considered a utility.

-- outdated. The data used are from 2005. That's because the report is from 2006, but I suspect things have gotten worse since then.

 

[Care4all]

a microwave 30 years ago was a luxury and about $500-1000, a microwave today can be bought new for $100 if small....

everything is relative....

a vcr 30 years ago was $600, now for less than $100....a cell phone 30 years ago was $1000-$2000, now you can get them for free by just buying some minutes of airtime....there are many many examples of this, thanks to China....

 

[asterism]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

I remember being told by progressives that cable tv, cell phones and Internet access would never be considered entitlements.

What next progressives, free vacations?

 

[asterism]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

1. One minute the 'nuts are proclaiming that the poverty programs have been a complete failure, and,

2. the next minute they're complaining that our poor people are too well off.

jesus christ on a bicycle! lolol

Both are true. Poverty programs have not eliminated poverty, they have made it an acceptable lifestyle.

 

[Care4all]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

I remember being told by progressives that cable tv, cell phones and Internet access would never be considered entitlements.

What next progressives, free vacations?

i'm certain giving a poor child a new pair of shoes with gvt money was once frowned on by tax payers once upon a time, especially if they could not buy a new pair of shoes for their own child....

it's all relative.

also, the report does not say whether these people bought these things, it only says they have one or 2....tv's could be gifts from family, friends, or charities or purchased used from salvation army stores....

the article is meant to rile the ''crowds'' with no statistics that are relative to compare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor





Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

1. One minute the 'nuts are proclaiming that the poverty programs have been a complete failure, and,

2. the next minute they're complaining that our poor people are too well off.

jesus christ on a bicycle! lolol

Both are true. Poverty programs have not eliminated poverty, they have made it an acceptable lifestyle.

So the fact that a poor person in the US is not out gathering a bundle of sticks to take back to their shack to build a fire to cook a cup of rice for the family's daily meal is a bad thing.

Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

Got to laugh at this one...Here is the Conservative view of the "wealth" of the poor



Color TV? VCR? Microwave?
I can pick those up laying at the curb

What next conservatives? You going to complain that they have running water?

I remember being told by progressives that cable tv, cell phones and Internet access would never be considered entitlements.

What next progressives, free vacations?

i'm certain giving a poor child a new pair of shoes with gvt money was once frowned on by tax payers once upon a time, especially if they could not buy a new pair of shoes for their own child....

it's all relative.

also, the report does not say whether these people bought these things, it only says they have one or 2....tv's could be gifts from family, friends, or charities or purchased used from salvation army stores....

the article is meant to rile the ''crowds'' with no statistics that are relative to compare.

Remind me why the gov't needs to be using my taxpayer money to give people shoes.
Is there ANYTHING that gov't should not be doing for people who are not self-supporting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes I do support ending all programs. The more you give folks the more they want. If it were just a case of a helping hand that would be one thing. Unfortuntely once they sign on for the freebies they dont' want to stop. Why should they??

Before the 30's there was no welfare. People had it hard but they survived. My parents grew up during the depression and they survived. Nobody depended on the Govt to take care of em. They took care of themselves. In fact my parents would have laughed to think that the Govt was going to provide for them.

Today we have generations that depend on the Govt for their livlihood. They could care less where the money comes from as long as it comes. They have no incentive to live any other way.

Ok, so in your world, no children get healthcare if their parents are too poor to pay for it because there will be no more Medicaid.

How will that make America a better place?

There are such things as charities you know. They are alive and well here n America even though they are overshadowed by the Govt Social programs.

Yeah, and in places like Africa where the poorest people only get charity, if they're lucky,

they're much better off, correct? Charity solves the problem, right?