The Illusion Known As "Poverty"

[PoliticalChic]

I have posted that the Left uses its control of the language to win the argument, and nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the term 'poverty.'

It brings to mind the sort of thing that Dickens wrote about (my apologies to Liberals, who don't read, so cannot make the connection), ....

....in actuality it means "no home, no heat, no food."

It doesn't exist in America.
But Democrats/Liberals pretend it does....and get away with it.



Soooooo,......I'd be remiss not to post this, from the "Daily Signal:"

1. "On Tuesday, the Census Bureau released its annual poverty report declaring that 43.1 million Americans lived in poverty in 2015.

....much of what the Census reports about poverty is misleading.

Here are 15 facts about poverty in America that may surprise you. (All statistics are taken from U.S. government surveys.)

• Poor households routinely report spending $2.40 for every $1 of income the Census says they have. [Explain that, Liberals.]
• The average poor American lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair and has more living space than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany, or England.
• Eighty-five percent of poor households have air conditioning.
• Nearly three-fourths of poor households have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
• Nearly two-thirds of poor households have cable or satellite TV.
• Half have a personal computer; 43 percent have internet access.
• Two-thirds have at least one DVD player
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
• One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

(The above data on electronic appliances owned by poor households come from a 2009 government survey so the ownership rates among the poor today are most likely higher.)"
15 Facts About US Poverty the Government Hides


2. "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, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America




No home, no heat, no food?????

Hardly.

 

[blackwell]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

The poverty situation at issue is that of the solutions offered by the people of America through the welfare system.
Are you suggesting that the government send agents to the homes of those individuals to spread peanut butter on their toast, and institute hygiene to eradicate bedbugs?


Pray tell...what are you suggesting?

Welfare currently gives 'poor families' a higher income than the average working family in America.

I'd be happy to document that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

And....welcome to the board, blackwell.

 

[blackwell]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

The poverty situation at issue is that of the solutions offered by the people of America through the welfare system.
Are you suggesting that the government send agents to the homes of those individuals to spread peanut butter on their toast, and institute hygiene to eradicate bedbugs?


Pray tell...what are you suggesting?

Welfare currently gives 'poor families' a higher income than the average working family in America.

I'd be happy to document that.

What I'm suggesting is that there are people on welfare who definitely shouldn't be, and they're taking money from the people who really need it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

 

[blackwell]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

You're missing his point.

Government welfare programs encourage the sorts of behaviors that cause poverty.

From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘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.
   1. 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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Leftist government fraudulently calculates poverty so as to keep the bribery for votes going....


".... the misleading way the Census measures “poverty.” The Census defines a family as poor if its income falls below a specified income threshold. (For example, the poverty threshold for a family of four in 2015 was $24,036.) But in counting “income,” the Census excludes nearly all welfare benefits.

In 2014, government spent over $1 trillion on means-tested welfare for poor and low income people. (This figure does not include Social Security or Medicare.) Welfare spending on cash, food, and housing was $342 billion.

The cash, food, and housing spending alone was 150 percent of the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S. But the Census ignored more than four-fifths of these benefits for purposes of measuring poverty. Effectively, the Census counts poverty in the U.S. by ignoring almost the entire welfare state."
15 Facts About US Poverty the Government Hides

 

[pinqy]

I have posted that the Left uses its control of the language to win the argument, and nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the term 'poverty.'

It brings to mind the sort of thing that Dickens wrote about (my apologies to Liberals, who don't read, so cannot make the connection), ....

....in actuality it means "no home, no heat, no food.".

I'm sorry, where are you getting that definition from? Not a dictionary, and not from any professionals in poverty studies or statistics.

So you just decided that that's what poverty should mean and declared it to be "actuality." That's just absurd.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

What does lice shampoo cost? 5 bucks? And, food card for breakfast and dinner at home. Bed bugs have become a legitimate problem, but few poor people live in their own homes. Extermination expenses would then fall on public housing and landlords to rectify the problem.

 

[blackwell]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

You're missing his point.

Government welfare programs encourage the sorts of behaviors that cause poverty.

From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘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.
   1. 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.

And you're missing my point, which is that there are people who genuinely need welfare to survive. Should these people be left for dead because of the actions of some people who do decide to scam the system.

An estimated 10.1% of welfare goes to improper welfare payments, which includes fraud, funds going to the wrong recipient, and the right recipient recieving an incorrect amount. The other 89.9% goes to people who actually need it.

The problem of daily work being no longer the cultural norm is not a problem of welfare, it's a problem of fraud and the culture. In everything, there will be fraud, but there will also be those who actually need help.

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

What does lice shampoo cost? 5 bucks? And, food card for breakfast and dinner at home. Bed bugs have become a legitimate problem, but few poor people live in their own homes. Extermination expenses would then fall on public housing and landlords to rectify the problem.

I'll give you that, the specific friend I was talking about isn't a very close friend of my child so none of us know much about their living situation aside from what they post on Tumblr. I don't know if they own the house, rent, or what, but from what they've said they're having problems with the pests repeatedly coming back and that's what I was referencing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have posted that the Left uses its control of the language to win the argument, and nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the term 'poverty.'

It brings to mind the sort of thing that Dickens wrote about (my apologies to Liberals, who don't read, so cannot make the connection), ....

....in actuality it means "no home, no heat, no food.".

I'm sorry, where are you getting that definition from? Not a dictionary, and not from any professionals in poverty studies or statistics.

So you just decided that that's what poverty should mean and declared it to be "actuality." That's just absurd.

I'm giving the reality based definition of poverty in opposition to the one designed to perpetuate poverty and big government.

This:
"It’s important to remember that the official poverty rate came about largely by happenstance and was not the result of a carefully thought through analysis. An economist named Mollie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration made the first estimate of the poverty rate in 1963. Ms. Orshansky, who died in 2007, had some data from the Department of Agriculture on food budgets for families of different sizes and incomes. She saw that food constituted about a third of spending by poor families and thus assumed that three times the budget for food would approximate the poverty rate.
This back of the envelope calculation was seized upon by the White House under Lyndon Johnson, which turned Orshansky’s figure into the official measure of poverty. Since that time, the original poverty measure of $3,000 for a family of four has simply been increased by the rate of inflation. In 2010, the official poverty threshold for a family of four (two adults and two children) was $22,113."
- See more at: Poverty Rates: How a Flawed Measure Drives Policy




Poverty, to be addressed via $1 trillion a year stolen from the public fisc, doesn't exist.
It would be if there were real poverty: no home, no heat, no food.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

You're missing his point.

Government welfare programs encourage the sorts of behaviors that cause poverty.

From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘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.
   1. 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.

And you're missing my point, which is that there are people who genuinely need welfare to survive. Should these people be left for dead because of the actions of some people who do decide to scam the system.

An estimated 10.1% of welfare goes to improper welfare payments, which includes fraud, funds going to the wrong recipient, and the right recipient recieving an incorrect amount. The other 89.9% goes to people who actually need it.

The problem of daily work being no longer the cultural norm is not a problem of welfare, it's a problem of fraud and the culture. In everything, there will be fraud, but there will also be those who actually need help.

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

What does lice shampoo cost? 5 bucks? And, food card for breakfast and dinner at home. Bed bugs have become a legitimate problem, but few poor people live in their own homes. Extermination expenses would then fall on public housing and landlords to rectify the problem.

I'll give you that, the specific friend I was talking about isn't a very close friend of my child so none of us know much about their living situation aside from what they post on Tumblr. I don't know if they own the house, rent, or what, but from what they've said they're having problems with the pests repeatedly coming back and that's what I was referencing.

"And you're missing my point, which is that there are people who genuinely need welfare to survive."

Who are they?

Please document your post.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

You're missing his point.

Government welfare programs encourage the sorts of behaviors that cause poverty.

From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
2. ‘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.
   1. 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.

And you're missing my point, which is that there are people who genuinely need welfare to survive. Should these people be left for dead because of the actions of some people who do decide to scam the system.

An estimated 10.1% of welfare goes to improper welfare payments, which includes fraud, funds going to the wrong recipient, and the right recipient recieving an incorrect amount. The other 89.9% goes to people who actually need it.

The problem of daily work being no longer the cultural norm is not a problem of welfare, it's a problem of fraud and the culture. In everything, there will be fraud, but there will also be those who actually need help.

Poverty does exist in the US, but I agree, the standards for what counts as poverty needs to be changed.

My kid has friends who pretty much only eat at school, who have bedbugs and lice every other week. That's poverty, not the TVs and Playstations and a house in good repair.

But those aren't poverty issues. They are the consequences of bad parenting. The government provides cards to buy food for the home. Lice extermination is a shampoo away, and bedbugs can also be exterminated. Those children have parents whose priorities have gone awry.

The idea behind the lice and bedbug statement is that some people can't afford the extermination, and they keep coming back if you can't afford proper extermination. Yes, a lot of these kids do have parents who need to get their lives straight, I'll give you that.

What does lice shampoo cost? 5 bucks? And, food card for breakfast and dinner at home. Bed bugs have become a legitimate problem, but few poor people live in their own homes. Extermination expenses would then fall on public housing and landlords to rectify the problem.

I'll give you that, the specific friend I was talking about isn't a very close friend of my child so none of us know much about their living situation aside from what they post on Tumblr. I don't know if they own the house, rent, or what, but from what they've said they're having problems with the pests repeatedly coming back and that's what I was referencing.

I absolutely agree that there are people that need help, and should be helped. People that have been hurt, and can't work. Temporary loss of employment, death of an earner in the family. But most of those are temporary conditions. I have a problem with those who make it a career choice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Based on the above, the thread to this point, I look forward to the argument put forth by brain-dead Liberals geared toward supporting the idea that the implementation of unnecessary programs is anything but an attempt to grow government.


a. "The avalanche of transfer payments are accepted by the public only if they are trained to accept what William Voegeli calls ‘non-Euclidean economics,” in which taxpayers are led to believe that all the goodies are paid for by someone else….the welfare state manages the perceptions of its cost s and benefits to encourage them to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistribution by the government.”
William Voegeli, “Never Enough, America’s Limitless Welfare State,” p. 7.



That's Liberals: they " to believe an impossibility."

Isn't that the definition of stupidity?

 

[pinqy]

I have posted that the Left uses its control of the language to win the argument, and nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the term 'poverty.'

It brings to mind the sort of thing that Dickens wrote about (my apologies to Liberals, who don't read, so cannot make the connection), ....

....in actuality it means "no home, no heat, no food.".

I'm sorry, where are you getting that definition from? Not a dictionary, and not from any professionals in poverty studies or statistics.

So you just decided that that's what poverty should mean and declared it to be "actuality." That's just absurd.

I'm giving the reality based definition of poverty in opposition to the one designed to perpetuate poverty and big government.

This:
"It’s important to remember that the official poverty rate came about largely by happenstance and was not the result of a carefully thought through analysis. An economist named Mollie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration made the first estimate of the poverty rate in 1963. Ms. Orshansky, who died in 2007, had some data from the Department of Agriculture on food budgets for families of different sizes and incomes. She saw that food constituted about a third of spending by poor families and thus assumed that three times the budget for food would approximate the poverty rate.
This back of the envelope calculation was seized upon by the White House under Lyndon Johnson, which turned Orshansky’s figure into the official measure of poverty. Since that time, the original poverty measure of $3,000 for a family of four has simply been increased by the rate of inflation. In 2010, the official poverty threshold for a family of four (two adults and two children) was $22,113."
- See more at: Poverty Rates: How a Flawed Measure Drives Policy




Poverty, to be addressed via $1 trillion a year stolen from the public fisc, doesn't exist.
It would be if there were real poverty: no home, no heat, no food.

I'm well aware that our poverty measures are flawed, and I have worked with people who have been trying to get them changed for the last 2 decades. The problem is that no politician wants to change it.

But your "reality" based definition is not shared by any economist that I'm aware of.

There are 3 basic ways to measure poverty:

1. Absolute standard-anyone below a certain level of income or living standards is poor.
2. Relative-Poor relative to others in the country. Bottom quintile of income, perhaps.
3. Subjective-Does the individual consider him/herself poor?

The U.S. has, as you've noted, traditionally used an absolute measure and you just prefer a harsher measure in an attempt to define away poverty. And the idea that no one in the U.S. is homeless or starving is ridiculous.
Europe prefers the relative measure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have posted that the Left uses its control of the language to win the argument, and nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the term 'poverty.'

It brings to mind the sort of thing that Dickens wrote about (my apologies to Liberals, who don't read, so cannot make the connection), ....

....in actuality it means "no home, no heat, no food.".

I'm sorry, where are you getting that definition from? Not a dictionary, and not from any professionals in poverty studies or statistics.

So you just decided that that's what poverty should mean and declared it to be "actuality." That's just absurd.

I'm giving the reality based definition of poverty in opposition to the one designed to perpetuate poverty and big government.

This:
"It’s important to remember that the official poverty rate came about largely by happenstance and was not the result of a carefully thought through analysis. An economist named Mollie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration made the first estimate of the poverty rate in 1963. Ms. Orshansky, who died in 2007, had some data from the Department of Agriculture on food budgets for families of different sizes and incomes. She saw that food constituted about a third of spending by poor families and thus assumed that three times the budget for food would approximate the poverty rate.
This back of the envelope calculation was seized upon by the White House under Lyndon Johnson, which turned Orshansky’s figure into the official measure of poverty. Since that time, the original poverty measure of $3,000 for a family of four has simply been increased by the rate of inflation. In 2010, the official poverty threshold for a family of four (two adults and two children) was $22,113."
- See more at: Poverty Rates: How a Flawed Measure Drives Policy




Poverty, to be addressed via $1 trillion a year stolen from the public fisc, doesn't exist.
It would be if there were real poverty: no home, no heat, no food.

I'm well aware that our poverty measures are flawed, and I have worked with people who have been trying to get them changed for the last 2 decades. The problem is that no politician wants to change it.

But your "reality" based definition is not shared by any economist that I'm aware of.

There are 3 basic ways to measure poverty:

1. Absolute standard-anyone below a certain level of income or living standards is poor.
2. Relative-Poor relative to others in the country. Bottom quintile of income, perhaps.
3. Subjective-Does the individual consider him/herself poor?

The U.S. has, as you've noted, traditionally used an absolute measure and you just prefer a harsher measure in an attempt to define away poverty. And the idea that no one in the U.S. is homeless or starving is ridiculous.
Europe prefers the relative measure.

There are 3 basic ways to measure poverty:

1. Absolute standard-anyone below a certain level of income or living standards is poor.
2. Relative-Poor relative to others in the country. Bottom quintile of income, perhaps.
3. Subjective-Does the individual consider him/herself poor?

Four.
No home, no heat, no food...the only real basis for the usage of the term.


Have you found it necessary to step over any folks who had died of starvation on the streets of America?

No?

Didn't think so.



The Welfare Policies that you have failed to change are a transparent bribe for the votes of those on the dole...and have no relationship to poverty in any way, form or design.

 

[racialreality9]

Admit it, politicalchic. You don't like blacks. You think they are sitting on welfare and you are working oh so hard to support yourself.

Give me a break.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Admit it, politicalchic. You don't like blacks. You think they are sitting on welfare and you are working oh so hard to support yourself.

Give me a break.

Can you find any such quotes by me?

No?

Shall I await your apology, or your development of some class?