Help! "Understanding Poverty" by Robert Rector...I don't UNDERSTAND!!

I got into a discussion with some friends of mine who were citing this article as their excuse for why poor people in America are doing GREAT! I KNOW this has to be some kind of bullshit approach, mostly because it was done by the Heritage Foundation. But no matter what I Google, I am having a hard time coming up with a concise reason for why it is bullshit. Is anybody familiar with this paper or whatever and WHY it is not credible? I can't just say it is because the Heritage Foundation supports it. That's good enough here, but I don't think they are buying it.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

But, given that poverty isn't important in this country, that won't happen.

It's the same stuff I hear from "liberals".... "poor people in the US are much better off than people in third world countries"

Yes, liberals say shit like that.

I have learned some interesting things about how we determine poverty, though.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2000/0300bergmann.html

using owning homes, TV's or other material items doesn't make a person not poor. Inheritance, gifts from others and thrift stores help a lot in that area.

Second, 45% of studies just make shit up out of whole cloth and many of the rest of them are reporting facts in such a way that it supports their view. The fact that they use these techniques should scream to anyone that it's crap. When they wish to minimize it, they use "figures" based on total population of the US. When they wish to maximize it to seem better, they use just the 15 million that are in abject poverty. And comparing the house size to the houses in Europe?? What a bunch of bullshit.

I can't help you refute this. I can tell you my story about living in poverty, but it takes too long to write. The poor are NOT doing better. I cannot imagine being poor still with prices the way they are now and the strict standards that the government has to allow someone to get a little help.

Edited to add: look at the dates on some of those "studies"... 1970's, 1960's.... not exactly current

Yes, the poor may own a house and car, but they may not have money to buy food or put gas in the car. Some people used to have jobs, but due to downsizing/rightsizing/offshoring, they became the long-term un-/under-employed; so they may indeed have material goods, but no income. Or, like us, they may have someone who was unemployed and who then became chronically ill, then disabled.

The broken healthcare system assures that those with a chronic illness will become poor. It is called "spend down of assets", which allows one to keep a house, a car and no more than $3000 (for a couple) in the bank. That sum includes whatever is in the checking account at the time. Go over ~$1450/month income (couple w/disabled person) and loose all Medicaid coverage. Period. No sliding scale.

Yes, we could sell off some of our possessions, but then that would count as income and could disqualify Hubby for Medicaid... and if you saw the quantity of meds he is on... we don't want to go there. So we live in what the Victorians would have called "genteel poverty", hoping nothing breaks, because we won't be able to fix it (unless the parental units pay for it).

The poor in the 3rd world sometimes own their farm, but that doesn't mean they can sell their crops, or even that the farm produces enough for them to eat. Hunger is hunger, where ever it is.

Which is exactly what happened in Katrina!

People living on $623 a month don't have ANYTHING left at the beginning of the month!

Katrina struck at the end of the month, and even those with cars didn't have the $$$ to put gas in said cars.

And, some of those cars undoubtedly weren't running and needed repairs.

Even if they could scrape together some $$ for gas, they had no money for a hotel, once they drove out of NOLA.

So, people suffered and died.

But, they were't "poor".

Stop, please. You made my gin come out my nose. You are priceless.

And I didn't think anyone was going to get that!!

:beer:

They don't have a smilie for gin, but here's a beer to replace the one you...um... lost. :D

the U.S. still uses a highly outdated scale to measure poverty. I think it's still like, if your income is under $600 a month then you are in Poverty. Anything over that and you're not. (I guess if you make $800 a month you're "Middle Class"?) :eyes: They do not take the cost of living into account whatsoever! Which means that there are way more people in Poverty than their bogus Census Reports show!

Anything to cover up the magnitude of the problem.:grr: Assholes.

The Heritage Foundation probably is another Non-Profit that pockets most of the money
for themselves. The money never gets to the Poor. What a racket.
Hence more motivation for them to say that "the Poor in America are doing great.":eyes:

but an important element is missing from the analysis. Compassion. This article is basically a good thing to point to when saying "I have no sympathy for those lazy people". Also missing is the crime element. When living in a poor neighborhood there is always the fear of violent crime to make your life miserable. The cars that the article sites are not always safe or reliable transport and the expense of maintaining an aging vehicle is not counted in the article.

But the main element I think is the lack of options. When a person is poor they have little choice but to go to work if they are sick. If they are sick they have only the emergency room for medical care. These people are doing the economic equivalent of treading water and any crisis may sink them permanently.

From the vantage point of this article there are few poor people here when you think of Ethiopia as your example of poor which is what they seem to be doing. we have it good here in America no denying it but too many are stuck in situations where they have no choice but to work like slaves to keep what comforts they have managed to accumulate.

Can I quote you???

permanently."

Excellently worded!

I can certainly relate! Treading water is a good way to express what my life has been like for many years, and I have finally been torpedoed down to the bottom.

Many others have hit bottom, also. Surely these deaths are as important as the ones in Ethiopia?

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts)

Fri Apr-15-05 06:27 AM

Original message

You make $12k a year, rent a crappy apartment, drive a clunker,



and yet our "media" would have us believe that "your" main concerns are :

1. selection of judges

2. whether a woman you never met has a feeding tube re-inserted

3. making sure that only "super-rich" people can still file bankruptcy

4. making sure that super-rich people can hold their family "booty" untaxed for generation after generation

5. making sure that public schools get little, if any federal funding

6. making sure that only rich people can use the judicial system when they are injured or defrauded

7. making sure that no woman has any reproductive choice

8. making sure that your employer has easy access to off-shoring YOUR job if he cannot get you to work for less

9. making sure that insurance companies are "well taken care of", even if it means that YOU cannot afford medical insurance

10. making sure that oil wells go into the Arctic reserve, even though it's a "drop in the bucket" that will probably end up in Japan..TEN years from now.

11. pushing for private accounts for social security, even though ALL reliable experts say this is a recipe for DISASTER

12. making sure that God is EVERYWHERE..in courthouses, schools, TV, radio..

13. making sure that gay people can never marry

14. making sure that "our borders" are "mexican-free zones"

It simply amazes me how such uneducated people are "experts" on tort reform, and energy and taxes, and social security, by virtue of regurgitating talking points.

I have to hope that in their day-to-day lives, these people are really thinking about.. :

1. How much Kraft mac 'n cheese will $5 food stamps buy?

2. How can I pay $125 a week daycare on a take home check of $220

3. Why does my crappy apartment cost so damned much?

4. How will I pay a $400 repair bill on a car that's worth $800?

5. Just how high of a fever does the baby have to have, before I break the budget and take him to a doctor?

6. At $2.75 a gallon, how many days will I have to hitch a ride to work?

7. How many part-time jobs are "enough"..2? 3?..

8. When you work 2-3 jobs, and pay for childcare, when do you have "family-time"?

9. How can MY values be instilled in my kids when they never see me?

10. How can a marriage survive when both parents work all the time, and never have any quality time together or with the family?

11. How can Grandma afford to stay in her paid-for home, since the nursing home wants to confiscate it for grandpa's care?

I think these are the REAL problems that most people grapple with...not the esoteric policy issues that so many on call-in shows claim to "worry" about.

It annoys me every time I hear the talking points come out of the mouths of people who haven't a CLUE what they are talking about..

It's all a game..My side-your side.. These people are not even thinking about the consequences of these draconian policies..on their lives or the lives of their peers..

They are merely parroting what they are brainwashed to believe :(

They spout out a bunch of "facts" and just assume we'll nod and say "okay" because one of them has a PhD after his name. I call bullshit. I don't have time to research every particular "fact" they spew, but a couple jumped out at me. First, their contention that poor children in the U.S. aren't hungry. Bullshit. Hunger is a rampant problem in the U.S. Here are a couple of citations:

Greenberg, R. (1998). The painful reality of hunger . Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152(5), 423-424.

Kleinman, R. E., Murphy, J. M., Little, M., Pagano, M., Wehler, C. A., Regal, K., et al. (1998). Hunger in children in the United States: Potential behavioral and emotional correlates. Pediatrics, 101(1), E3.

Murphy, J. M., Wehler, C. A., Pagano, M. E., Little, M., Kleinman, R. E., & Jellinek, M. S. (1998). Relationship between hunger and psychosocial functioning in low-income American children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(2), 163-170.

Granted, these are about 10 years old, but I wasn't aware much has changed in this regard.

Second, their contention that most poor children are poor because their parents don't work. Also bullshit and directly refutable by readily available data. There are tons of reports posted on the website for the Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia, for example, that show that approximately 80-85% of poor children live in families where one or more adult is working.

Seems like this report falls into the "lets just make shit up" to fit our view of the world. I'd like to see them try and get this published in the peer-reviewed literature. I, for one, would gladly tear them apart.

To understand poverty, you must understand being hopeless.

You have to imagine being easy prey, and watching even "good" people turn on you because they know there will be no consequences.

You must understand being criticised, put down and blamed for your own condition.

You must understand feeling so worthless you think dying would be better than living in your car again, or in a shelter again.

You must understand what it is like to want independence and self-sufficiency so badly, you refuse even good-intentioned help because you feel ashamed to need help at all.

You must understand the grumble of your belly telling you that you should have taken the help, and hating your belly for betraying your deepest desire, for reminding you that even you think you are too worthless to eat.


There are people around you

right now.

who are there.


What can you do, - without shaming them or making a fool of yourself - to let them know they have value, that the world does care about them, that you care about their grumbling bellies, homelessness, and hopelessness?

What should our government do to alleviate poverty?

That faith-based, thousand-points-of-light sheep is wearing wolf's clothing.















...

that your children would be better off without you, but keeping them with you because they are all you live for.

You must understand what it feels like to be hungry so that your children don't starve, yet feeling angry that they are eating the food, then feeling ashamed that you are angry at a child for eating the food you insisted they eat.

You have to know what it's like to be so hungry that you are willing to risk jail to steal a pound of hamburger to go with that box of Hamburger Helper you got at the Food Pantry.

You have to understand how it feels to send your child to school with "new" used clothes from Children's Aid, knowing she is going to be teased, wishing you could do something to make it stop, but knowing there is nothing you can do.

You have to understand how it feels to keep your child home on "field trip day" because there just isn't $11 in the budget to send her, then feeling angry at her for crying because it makes you feel like a piece of crap and worthless that she's in this situation with you.

Just wanted to add a few. Treating the poor as if they are invisible is the most awful thing you can do. Reach out to another person. Try to help. Get involved.

Great (if sad and memory-provoking) post!

for a long time: the clothes poor kids have to wear. There are some programs to help get nice new clothes for poor children but not enough. It would be good to have programs to help poor kids get decent haircuts and dental care, too.

Having taught in high-poverty Appalachian counties, I'm convinced a lot of kids drop out because they're tired of being ashamed of their appearance.

I know that it's hard for children to learn when they are constantly being teased and feel so ashamed. When you are the parent of that child, you know that they are going to blame you for what is happening to them, but there's just nothing you can do about it.

Basically, there should be programs that help children go back to school with haircuts, makeup, if needed, dental care, and new (really new, not just new to you) clothes. Children are so cruel to kids who are different. And when a child is feeling persecuted and ashamed, they don't really learn anything. Even though we managed to get our oldest daughter out of that environment (got lucky and got a great new job) when she was in 6th grade, I believe that what happened to her in her elementary school years scarred her for life.

How 'bout being RADICAL, and making sure that EVERYONE in the richest country in the world has enough to live decently?

Even Nixon was advocating a basic income for everyone!

Why isn't SSI enough to afford a decent home, so people aren't living in cars and under bridges?

Why isn't SS enough to provide decent health care for all elders?

Why isn't SSI enough to provide for your disabled children without going to charity programs that make you feel like a worm?

Why are ALL SALARIES enough to comfortably provide the basics for ALL??

ENOUGH WITH CHARITY!

It's time for "liberals" to be concerned with JUSTICE!

And I didn't really think of it that way. All I know is that I would have gladly taken any program that would have kept my daughters from suffering as they did while we lived on welfare and food stamps.

But you are correct. It shouldn't be another program. There should have been enough for me to afford to buy them new school clothes instead of having to rely on charity. But during those years, I would have taken anything that would have stopped their suffering. Guess I still have some of that shamed mindset that I thought I had left behind.

one more "application" for you to fill out.

One more appointment in your already busy schedule.

One more time slot taken away from your children.

ONE MORE HUMILIATION!

Of course you would want your children to have access to whatever is available!

We all just need to start thinking in different (actually, OLDER) ways.

"Guess I still have some of that shamed mindset that I thought I had left behind. "

Don't we all! That's why I keep speaking up on this stuff. As another DUer so aptly put it, "Poverty is a continuous negative feedback loop." *I* have it too, and even if my life suddenly changed for the better now, and I lived to be 100, I wouldn't be able to bleach out the humiliation and hurt that I've gone through.

Isn't it interesting that there is so much abuse in the "system" that one must endure while poor, yet, there are no "programs" for overcoming that abuse?!

I admire you, kdmorris, for putting your kids first through some really ugly crap. I admire you for being willing to stand back and reassess what the damage is all about.

:applause:

even if my life suddenly changed for the better now, and I lived to be 100, I wouldn't be able to bleach out the humiliation and hurt that I've gone through.

The only way I've been able to overcome the abuse I suffered when poor was because I have I husband who believes in me and told me "You can do it". And I believed him. But, I still have moments when I feel like someone is going to see what a fraud I am, how I'm just a poser and don't really deserve to be doing this job that pays me well. Plus I have missing teeth, which, even though I'm not poor anymore, I can't afford to get fixed, so I usually just have no self-esteem, and I can't smile brilliantly at people because they will see them.

Maybe if America stopped treating the poor like sub-humans, this would never happen. You are 100% correct on how I would have felt with this program. I would have been grateful that my children had stuff, but I would have felt even worse about myself that I had to beg to get it.

:(

I'm so sorry..... I get so angry that there are so many of us who have been made to feel so bad. And for what? So some can have someone to look down on?

You are so right that what it takes is having someone who believes in you! And by that, I don't mean someone who pushes and says "You can do it" (so? you're just as valuable even if you've been dashed to the point where you can no longer "do it"!)

What I mean is someone who lets you know you're valuable just as you are, and appreciates your courage in having persevered, and, most of all, have maintained your caring heart.

You know, the most understanding thing that someone has said to me recently was, "It must be really difficult to go through all that and not let your heart get hardened." Appreciating me as I am, and not what I could potentially be!!

Those of us who've been dashed upon the rocks need simply to be told we're valuable as we are.

I don't know where to go for that.

"lets you know you're valuable just as you are, and appreciates your courage in having persevered, and, most of all, have maintained your caring heart"

We wouldn't have made it out if it wasn't for my husband saying "You can do it". What I meant to convey is that, when I got this job offer, 1000 miles away from my home, I was sure I would fail. I cried and agonized over doing something so potentially damaging to our family. I was terrified and I was sure that I COULDN'T "do it". I told him I would fail, and he said "I know you are scared. I'm scared, too. But you won't fail, if you want to do this". I believed him at the time, despite the fear, and leaped off the cliff to take this job that has turned our life around.

But he would have loved me and supported me if I had given in to the fear and remained in the horrible circumstances we were living in. The love and my value to him isn't contingent on my getting this job (This was 10 years ago, by the way), and he knew how hard it was for me to take that first step. He was poor growing up and we were poor again together. We lived through it together and he is the one person who believes in me, no matter what.

Does he have a good job now? (hmmm, nosy question, and doesn't need to be answered, if you don't wish to.)

I've just been pushed so much, and gotten that "You haven't lived up to your potential" shit, that I just need so much to be accepted as I am.

Wont' happen, but... it's what I need.

It's too late, much to late, for me to ever find someone who could just love me as I am.

I'm glad you found one!

But most of America's poor actually do not live in cars or under bridges.

Since I'm living in my car, that is topmost in my mind.

Comments like yours just show the lack of concern.

If you pretend that America's poor are in that situation, all conservatives need to do is point out that they are not.

I don't have a lack of concern. I grew up homeless.

Pretense????

Grow a heart.

I am just saying that most of America's poor are not in fact living in their cars or under bridges.

That doesn't change the fact that more needs to be done to alleviate poverty.

So, there's your "pretense".

That kind of language needs a heart.

Grow one.

The left even outdoes religious fundamentalists when it comes to self-righteousness. That is why nothing gets done. The left is happy to talk about poverty; actually doing something is another thing. How else do you explain the popularity of the aristocratic John Edwards?

And I need to grow a heart because I accept a fact?

You have no idea who I am, what I've lived through, or what I have done in my life.

And I'm done with it.

The fact that you want to bash Edwards says it ALL to me. You're just one of the group.

GOODBYE.

ublished on Friday, February 23, 2007 by McClatchy Newspapers
US Economy Leaving Record Numbers in Severe Poverty
by Tony Pugh
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0223-09.htm

Rector has been using those figures for a few years, now - at least since '05, I think. I once read a very good refutation, but havn't found it again yet. If I can, I'll post it.

I think EPI probably has other data that would be useful as well:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp165

Basic family budgets
Working families' incomes often fail to meet living expenses around the U.S.

by Sylvia A. Allegretto

:kick:

It is a PR outfit in think tank drag.

Second, it's bullshit because they redifine poverty to exclude homelessness, among other things. Look at this:

"For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2002 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.2

But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines."

Do you notice they keep talking about "households"? Homeless people don't have households. What this POS is saying is, if you don't count the really poor people, poor people are doing just fine!

That's why the writer can state how "well" the poor in America are doing. In other words, Democrats.

Does that answer your question?

The title alone is an insult to the poor. The idealogues at the Heritage Foundation certainly don't have a clue.

I'd recommend to your friends (who sound quite snobby) to spend some time in a soup kitchen or a free clinic. Maybe then they'll at least stop getting "excited" about a crap article from a crap foundation.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

(it's the 9/04 article, if this link takes you to a different colmun, which it shouldn;t until next Tuesday)

Yes our poor children have food, shelter, education and health care. Democrats like it that way. Want to fight about it?

Fuck these Heritage idiots.

Not nearly enough. I understand your point, I just wanted to point out that even with the efforts we the Dems have made there are still many who lack even those basics.

But I just don't see the point in denying the fact that we have many poor children who are provided for. Better to point out the obvious, that Johnson's "Great Society" lifted more people out of poverty than anything the Republicans ever wanted to do. It's time to finish the job, that's what matters.

Didn't seem like it to me. A lot of the points were "True, but." More putting the points to discussion rather than debunking them.

First off, the most baldly misleading bit is here:



I'm confused as to what the poor spending more money per person than did the 1970's middle class proves about how "luxurious" their lives are. Is it possible that an impoverished lifestyle today is as expensive as a middle class lifestyle was a generation ago? Is it possible the cost of living has outgrown inflation? The author declines to explore that option, and declines to mention that -all- the quintiles in question have seen their expenditures per person go up around 10+%, adjusted for inflation, since 1985. Moreover, the expenditures on transportation for the poorest quintile only went up .2 percent in the lowest quintile, and vehicle purchase expenditures went down almost 12%, while price of gas and maintenance each jumped up around 11%. So should he cease his blathering about all the cars these poor folks own as evidence of their luxury? I say yeah.

The comparison of living space includes heated and "non-heated living space." What's that? Oh, a garage. Do you think many Europeans have garages? How about us Americans, given our wide population distribution in rural and suburban areas? I thought so.

That's just for starters. I'll give it another look in a bit. Using figures in this way can be very misleading.

So poor people own a car? Does it run? What about repairs? Is one of the cars owned sitting in the front broke down? Is it licensed? Tabs? Do they have insurance, can they afford insurance? They own a home? Where? What's the home like, what area, what is the crime rate, is the house in good repair? Air fucking conditioner? What does that mean? I can stop by a second hand store I suppose and buy one at the same time I buy clothes, if that is necessary criteria, that makes me well off. Hell those dumb poor people who die every year in the heat--many of them elderly, must not know the tricks of the beingpoortrade. TV's? Again what is that supposed to mean? A TV on top of a TV with one working? Cable? Really? Until it's shut off because the bill doesn't get paid? Washer and dryer? Maybe if it comes with the apartment complex. Big screen TV? Maybe. It's how rent a centers make their money. But all I've personally seen of poverty is any material gain is subject to either being ripped off or pawned. "Crowding is quite rare" Measuring human value in square feet no less. That in itself screams bullshit.

All this is meaningless psychobabble when it comes to American poverty. Our poor aren't bathing and drinking in a filthy river--for the most part---no. But poverty is soul crushing and spirit depriving. It also feeds destructive habits and behaviors, when the most important thing is survival.

The most disgusting part of the report was the statement that poor children are "supernurished" Again, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? "More meat" What, hamburger stew? With food bank rice and Koolaid? I know how to cook poor. In fact, while I'm on the subject of foodbanks, if everything is so wonderful for the poor because they don't have kwashiorkor's syndrome, why do food banks have to beg for support every year. Excepting holidays, when folks tend to remember the hungry.

I've left that kind of poverty behind, but you never forget. If I had time, the report wouldn't be hard to take apart since it's so obviously biased, and based on meaningless statistics. (I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out what "air conditioner" has to do with anything. Might be a fucking hole in the wall.)

get to their jobs, thanks to all the me-me-me conservatives who refuse to fund public transit.

we are ALL rich? http://www.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,8543,-11105255102,00.html

Guess we aren't all rich after all:

Are USians so lacking in compassion that the only way to tug at their hearts is to mention CHILDREN?

As Michael Moore says, "Who ARE we?"

If I had a week to research the points and write an analysis, I'd do a better job of it but these are simple responses based on my professional experience (and validated by personal experience as well)


* Forty-six 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.
Absolutely true that 46% own their own homes -- or rather, are counted as "owners" even if they're mortgaged to the hilt like many others. In part this stat is driven by households headed by low income seniors but it's also heavily influenced by two other groups:1) those who own old, run down housing with many rooms and low overall square footage, located in high crime neighborhoods or rural areas where the cost of acquisition of housing is quite low and 2)those households who are success stories in the HUD and state level programs to move low income households into home ownership.

On final note: the non senior low income households who own homes are largely the highest income among the poor (those earning more than 50% of the area median income) and are disproportionately two wage earner households -- in other words, they may be one job loss away from losing that home.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
This is such a disingenuous comparison. How many households NOW have air conditioning? How many poor households 30 years ago had AC? But to the 76% stat: one rickety yard sale window air conditioner qualifies the household for inclusion, but I'm betting that author is hoping that the reader interprets it as central AC.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
Sounds right, but that's probably related to two conditions. First, the traditional housing for single persons, SROs and rooming houses, have virtually disappeared in this country. Few tenants are offered housing with fewer than two rooms per person. Second, a major source of housing for low income renters are subsidized state and federal programs which have strict guidelines on habitability. Again, your government dollars can be thanked for reducing the overcrowding of the poor.

* The average 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.)
See above

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
That would be in large part because they can't walk to jobs or schools anymore and there are great swaths of the country where public transit is not a feasible alternative. Their cars tend to be older and more prone to break down too, but again the author's probably hoping the readers are envisioning late model cadillacs.

There was a HUD funded demonstration a few years back that sought to address linking people without reliable transport to jobs by rerouting public transits or organizing van pools-- again, your government dollars at work trying to improve the lives of low income Americans.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Let's hear it for the disposable society. With the exception of cable/satellite and auto dishwasher, all those electronic items can be had for a few bucks new or used. Many times basic cable or satellite service is the one luxury the family allows, and the dishwashers I'm betting are mostly in the homes of senior who weren't low income a few years back. Again, I would wager that a detailed analysis of which households have these amenities would show that it's far more common in households where the income is on the higher end of the low income category.

On a final note, I suggest that the author spend six months living in these luxurious low income homes and get back to me.

How does having more living space as compared to Europeans translate into questioning the plight of those at poverty level in the U.S.? I'm sure lots of poor people, especially those in small towns and rural areas in the U.S. live in spacious digs, but are struggling to pay for the electric, heating, water and sewer bill, to make basic repairs to their homes, to stretch an extremely meager budget to feed and clothe themselves, etc., etc. Some of these folks may have bought their homes during more prosperous times or even live in their family homestead that they grew up in. In addition, a relatively rambling home or apartment could be quite substandard and have very low rent. There may be a very different standard in the square footage of homes in the U.S. and Europe due to history, custom, building standards, and local conditions.

Wherein families can rent houses in mixed neighborhoods so that poverty isn't pocketed which tends to feed on itself. That's why America's poor have more living space, which also contributes to the wealth of many rental property owners. Another Democratic Party success story, we should just claim it and expand it.

He's talking about the sub-prime loans. When he lists material goods such as air conditioning, cars, and color TVs, he's really listing debt, debt, and debt. To measure wealth and poverty based on acquisition of material goods through borrowing, is a key trick to make people believe that the poor are better off. It's faulty logic. Anyone can buy anything in America as long as they're willing to go into debt to do it.

The key measure is Net Asset Value. That's the value of their assets, equity in a home, savings, pension plans, investments, minus the value of their liabilities, credit card debt, mortgage balance, car loan balance, etc.

As a now "poor" person, the key to judging poverty is assets: your Net Asset Value, and liquid assets (checking, savings, etc.).

I will take my family as an example.

Assets:
1 house, equity= ~$150K (we are lucky, sold a house in SF Bay Area)
1 car, 2000 Hyundai wagon, ~$4K, not including cracked windshield
checking and savings= ~$250 (by end of month)
no other assets, other than stuff in house, and canned goods in pantry- went thorough Ch. 7 bankruptcy

Liabilities:
Mortgage balance= $25K
loan from Mom=$7K

Income:
$1238/mo from SSDI *

That's it, folks. And we are very lucky because our housing cost is so low-
$350/mo including mortgage, tax & insurance. Think about trying to rent a small apartment, say $650/mo (rent is fairly cheap here), and have enough left for bills and food. Wouldn't happen.

I have a friend who considers herself lucky when she has more than $10 for food each week. She is trying to live on $800/mo with $600/mo rent. Anyone want to try paying all their bills (after rent) on $200/mo.? One of our own here at DU is living on around $650/mo., in a boat on dry land. And Bobbolink lives in her car.

Just force those bastards to live on our incomes for a month or two and they would change their tune.

Never condemn a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

*ed to add: That income ends when Hubby dies, which will probably be within the next two years.

So what, that was the past. Only today’s dollars mean anything. Just because we’d have been wealthy with a middle class income of today in the 1950s doesn’t mean we’re wealthy today and has no bearing on the question.


The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
• Forty-six 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.
o So what? What is the quality of this house? If it’s an ancient house in the city in terrible shape, why is owning it meaningful?

• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
o 30 years ago, big deal. That was then. Does this air conditioning allegedly existing today work?

• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
o Size and quality of rooms? Quality of neighborhood?

• The average 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.)
o Oh, please. Puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze! Yes, you can have a tiny Paris apartment. And be very rich! And have a large, ramshackle house in a poor rural area of the U.S. And that’s supposed to compare?

• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
o What kind of cars? How old? How much mileage? How reliable?

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Like marrying the father is a choice. It’s the father who doesn’t want to marry them. As if men always want to get married. Hilarious. I suspect what they really expect is that every girl who can’t find a husband just not have children. Like it was in the 50s and the Victorian times they love so much.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

Bull. If that’s the case, it’s because the programs are all-or-nothing propositions. They should be gradual. The lowest paying jobs don’t have health insurance. So we should continue the health insurance until the person gets a job that offers it. Qualification should be based on poverty, not marital status. The current programs presume if there is a man in the house, he can get a job. If a man cannot get a job, he ought to be eligible for welfare too.

As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5

Says who they are counting these people as poor? I call BS. Most poor people do NOT own a home, they are renting from some slumlord.

Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over three-quarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.

This can hardly be true; if so, they probably don’t work. The AC is probably a window unit. It also doesn’t help you with the bills to have an automatic dishwasher. Geez, the poor should be hot without A/C, have to wash dishes by hand, and have to do all their cooking the hard way before we can decide they are really poor.

Poor households are well-equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. One-quarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty.

All of these things get turned off when you can’t pay the bill. Just because the setup is there doesn’t mean you always have them.