I realize that in global terms being poor is a relative condition but please cite a credible example of the above.
By credible I don't mean someone who once was doing well but is unemployed, financially wiped out and is on the verge of being dispossessed.
I don't care how you choose to define poor, I'll use government data and the Census Bureau's measurement.
"Examining "Poverty" in America
In addition to the serious deficiencies of the
Census Bureau's measurement of income, the government's view of what constitutes "poverty" would be surprising to most Americans.
Government data on the possessions of officially poor households starkly contradict the general public understanding of what it means to be "poor."
Example: Nearly a third of all "poor" American households have microwave ovens.11
Example: Sixty-two percent of "poor" households own a car, truck or van. Fourteen percent own two or more cars.12
Example:
According to government figures, over 22,000 "poor" households have a heated swimming pool or a Jacuzzi.13
How Poor are Americas Poor
Are you beginning to realize how manipulated the public...that would be you...have been by the Left?
I'm beginning to realize that your entire thesis appears to rest on a semantic error:
Of course the poor are always with us, as are the rich, and while what you've said above is certainly true and correct, what you see in that picture is not "poor." The correct word is
impoverished and it is a relatively recent phenomenon -- as well as a goddam shame.
US tent cities highlight new realities as recession wears on | World news | guardian.co.uk
I assure you the people living in the tents have no jacuzzis. And they aren't "slackers." And there are many others who are living in cars and even more, even less fortunate, who are living on sidewalks and in parks and in hallways and cellars. Most of them were just like you and me before the rug was pulled out from under them by the schemes and scams of liberated Wall Street manipulators and the greed of deregulated corporatists who exported their jobs and wrecked the middle class economy.
I am not at all surprised when the half-wit participants in this forum seek to disseminate the kind of propaganda spewed by the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity. But you do surprise me and I wonder what your motive is. Because I know you know better.
Mikey...you're on the right track about there being different definitions of poor.
1.Leftist welfare policy is designed to keep the poor poor!
Proof? Sure...work is the way out....but the Left needs a constituency! Otherwise Marx is proven wrong...
1. Our Liberal friends have made certain that their client base cannot escape! There is no way out of the Poverty Trap- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if
she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
b.
but the central point is obvious.
Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to
$1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by
$69. This corresponds to
an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap
2. Leftist bureaucrats care not for the human collateral damage.
Welfare as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the
incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work,
entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
a. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Mikey....in your local library....take a look at Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb." Check out chapter five....
BTW...the Occupy folks? Phony...."The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%). "
Douglas Schoen: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd - WSJ.com
