NationStates Jolt Archive

By the most recently available data, 12.5% of Americans are living in poverty. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132956,00.html ) Of those:

— Forty-six percent of all poor households 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 porch or patio.

— 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.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (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; 30 percent own two or more cars.

— 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 a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

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 isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.

As a whole, are we really so bad off?

I can second that from personal experience.

As a whole, are we really so bad off?
In general terms, and especially when compared to really poor countries, no, not really.

Poor people in the US have it much much better than poor people elsewhere.

In general terms, and especially when compared to really poor countries, no, not really.

Poor people in the US have it much much better than poor people elsewhere.

I know. I'm looking over the original post again, and it's pretty humbling.

although I consider myself poor by americas standards but by world standards I'm fucking rich

They are and they aren't.

I'm Canadian, but my answer would depend on who you were comparing them to.

Compared to poor people in third world countries, poor people here are very well off. Compared to the middle class here, poor people have it rough.

Being poor and unable to afford trendy clothes can be socially crippling for a little kid, by the way.

In general terms, and especially when compared to really poor countries, no, not really.
Poor people in the US have it much much better than poor people elsewhere.

They have it better than a lot of middle class people in poor countries.

im related to alot of poor people. for the most part you get your needs met by the government if you are able to take the time and effort to get them.

there isnt much we can do about those who spend their meager amounts of money foolishly. there isnt much we can do about those who refuse to get even a basic highschool education. there isnt much we can do about those who have decided to mooch off of friends, family and the government.

we should do more to improve our crappy inner city schools. (i dont know what it would take). too many kids are left wtih the impression that they can never escape the life they were born into. school should inspire them to do better.

we need to make sure that kids are fed. school breakfast and lunch should be offered at every school. for kids in some families, that is their only sure source of nutrition.

we need to continue to support those who truly cannot work to support themselves.

in my mind the chronically homeless, hardcore drug abusers and mentally ill are in another category. i dont know what, if anything, can be done to improve their lot.

I'm Canadian, but my answer would depend on who you were comparing them to.

Compared to poor people in third world countries, poor people here are very well off. Compared to the middle class here, poor people have it rough.

Being poor and unable to afford trendy clothes can be socially crippling for a little kid, by the way.
Seems like around here it's all they use their money on, which is WHY they're poor in the first place. ;)

we should do more to improve our crappy inner city schools. (i dont know what it would take). too many kids are left wtih the impression that they can never escape the life they were born into. school should inspire them to do better.

we need to make sure that kids are fed. school breakfast and lunch should be offered at every school. for kids in some families, that is their only sure source of nutrition..

That's the problem; no one wants to do anything to help inner city schools other than throw more money at them. This would be great if the money wasn't wasted on administrative staff and questionable purchases/bonuses; the teachers are more often than not shafted in these schools to support an overwhelming amount of ineffective and unnecessary bureaucracy.

We need to trim administrative staff, boost teacher salaries, and install real accountability and opportunity in these schools. Otherwise, nothing's going to get better and money will continue to be squandered. We need to provide those kids with the best enivronment possible.

Of course, there is the problem that too many people don't want to encourage education and hard work, with the result being that kids are immediately disadvantaged by their home environment. This problem will take change at home, and with the parents, as well.

I'm Canadian, but my answer would depend on who you were comparing them to.

Compared to poor people in third world countries, poor people here are very well off. Compared to the middle class here, poor people have it rough.

Being poor and unable to afford trendy clothes can be socially crippling for a little kid, by the way.

When I was a kid, at the start of the school year, I would get 7 outfits for the year... basically one for each day of the week. Of course, by the time the year was almost through, they wouldn't fit that great. I didn't have it as bad as my younger brother, though, who got all my hand-me-downs. It kind of sucked, but it could have been worse and I think it was for the best.

When I was a kid, at the start of the school year, I would get 7 outfits for the year... basically one for each day of the week. Of course, by the time the year was almost through, they wouldn't fit that great. I didn't have it as bad as my younger brother, though, who got all my hand-me-downs. It kind of sucked, but it could have been worse and I think it was for the best.
you got 7 outfits!!!

wow

i got ONE and the rest was filled in with hand-me-downs and hand-me-overs.

you musta been rich!

you got 7 outfits!!!

wow

i got ONE and the rest was filled in with hand-me-downs and hand-me-overs.

you musta been rich!
I had 7 outfits for 3 years.

ahahahaha. fox news. gooood source.

When I was a kid, at the start of the school year, I would get 7 outfits for the year... basically one for each day of the week. Of course, by the time the year was almost through, they wouldn't fit that great. I didn't have it as bad as my younger brother, though, who got all my hand-me-downs. It kind of sucked, but it could have been worse and I think it was for the best.
I had three, at best, and all of my clothes are one size too large at the start so they fit at the end (and I come from an okay family).

ahahahaha. fox news. gooood source.

Do you have any information that casts doubt on the validity of the information presented in the article?

That's the problem; no one wants to do anything to help inner city schools other than throw more money at them. This would be great if the money wasn't wasted on administrative staff and questionable purchases/bonuses; the teachers are more often than not shafted in these schools to support an overwhelming amount of ineffective and unnecessary bureaucracy.

We need to trim administrative staff, boost teacher salaries, and install real accountability and opportunity in these schools. Otherwise, nothing's going to get better and money will continue to be squandered. We need to provide those kids with the best enivronment possible.

Of course, there is the problem that too many people don't want to encourage education and hard work, with the result being that kids are immediately disadvantaged by their home environment. This problem will take change at home, and with the parents, as well.
the problems of inner city schools are so massive that i cant begin to think of how to tackle them all. bad families, discouraged teachers, bloated administration, kids coming to school hungry, kids coming to school without paper and pencils, kids worrying about being shot, old buildings, old books, lack of resources, it goes on and on.

Do you have any information that casts doubt on the validity of the information presented in the article?
it seems very right to me.

the problems of inner city schools are so massive that i cant begin to think of how to tackle them all. bad families, discouraged teachers, bloated administration, kids coming to school hungry, kids coming to school without paper and pencils, kids worrying about being shot, old buildings, old books, lack of resources, it goes on and on.

Fundamentally, it is the overwhelming lack of accountability and the wasted money. There's plenty of money spent on education, but a massive chunk of it is simply wasted (the DoE lost a billion dollars in 2000) or spent on people that don't deserve it:

An example from Cleveland: the school district is in shambles because of a funding crisis, but not one of the Board of Education members takes a pay cut despite the fact that they each earn $200,000+ a year. Instead, they fire teachers and cut programs like buses and meals.

The other problem is, if someone screws up, nothing happens. We've got people running the DoE who have no experience in the field, who are almost impossible to fire, and are utterly incapable of dealing with the entrenched bureaucracy. As a result, the teachers, infrastructure, and ultimately the students suffer.

ahahahaha. fox news. gooood source.

Exactly! I don't call Fox News reliable.

Exactly! I don't call Fox News reliable.

and yet they didn't produce this information.. the cenus bureau did... now are you doubting the cenus bureau ... but willing to accept statistics including the growth of poverty in the united states ? ... I hope your not being that convient for your own purposes

Exactly! I don't call Fox News reliable.

Wow...


this is barely worth addressing because it's so ridiculous, but if you're not too lazy to do so, use a search engine and try the words, "census american poverty color television". It should give you a couple thousand sources... surely you'll find one of them credible.

Then again, given the scope of our vast right-wing conspiracy... :rolleyes:

Why is foxnews' credibility in doubt? I know that a bunch of liberals got ticked off because they reported Bush winning Florida first, but every other station did the exact same thing... so what makes them special?

— Forty-six percent of all poor households 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 porch or patio.
You can make a porch/patio. We made 3 of them.

— 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.
30 years ago, we didn't have pocket calculators.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
We wern't poor and we had 3 rooms for 5 people. Who the fuck has more than 2 rooms per person? Even not-poor people.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
So different countries have different standards? 85% of Americans have larger personal spaces than people in Brazil.

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
So they should walk the 75 miles to work? 90% of American big cities don't have public transportation, much less small cities or towns.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
This figure is totally irrelevant. $90 19" tv at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2684082). Cheap pair of prescription glasses, $50-100


— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Combo DVD/VCR player = $90. We got one cheaper during one of those Christmas sales.

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Besides the stereo that is like saying, "90% own stoves and refrigerators."

By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.

As a whole, are we really so bad off?
Was this a one person quiz?

and yet they didn't produce this information.. the cenus bureau did... now are you doubting the cenus bureau ... but willing to accept statistics including the growth of poverty in the united states ? ... I hope your not being that convient for your own purposes

I think that they're just upset because it compromises their class-warfare tactics.

You can make a porch/patio. We made 3 of them.


30 years ago, we didn't have pocket calculators.


We wern't poor and we had 3 rooms for 5 people. Who the fuck has more than 2 rooms per person? Even not-poor people.


So different countries have different standards? 85% of Americans have larger personal spaces than people in Brazil.


So they should walk the 75 miles to work? 90% of American big cities don't have public transportation, much less small cities or towns.


This figure is totally irrelevant. $90 19" tv at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2684082). Cheap pair of prescription glasses, $50-100



Combo DVD/VCR player = $90. We got one cheaper during one of those Christmas sales.


Besides the stereo that is like saying, "90% own stoves and refrigerators."


Was this a one person quiz?

I'm not understanding. you're upset because...?

You can make a porch/patio. We made 3 of them.


30 years ago, we didn't have pocket calculators.

yet those "poor" people able only to scavange enough to eat... suddently can afford air conditions

We wern't poor and we had 3 rooms for 5 people. Who the fuck has more than 2 rooms per person? Even not-poor people.

i should hope "poor" people dont have more then 2 rooms per person... and I predict when they said "rooms" they meant bed rooms.. not including kitchens, livingrooms, and bathrooms...

So different countries have different standards? 85% of Americans have larger personal spaces than people in Brazil.

exactly.. buy a smaller home, you spend less money

So they should walk the 75 miles to work? 90% of American big cities don't have public transportation, much less small cities or towns.

A vast majority of impoverished live near large cities like New York and Los Angles. This is why large cities have higher crime rates, and higher poverty rates. So they have more access to public transportation then middle or upper class people.

This figure is totally irrelevant. $90 19" tv at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2684082). Cheap pair of prescription glasses, $50-100

Combo DVD/VCR player = $90. We got one cheaper during one of those Christmas sales.

You realize in this stat they are showing people in "poverty" are spending hundreds of dollars on tv's and dvd players, and up to 62% have cable or satelite... an expense that could be between 50 and 100 dollars of expense MONTHLY!.... Its meant to show people are spending money on frivilious items instead of saving or investing in education etc.. No a 100 dollar tv is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but when you start adding everything up.. extra car, dvd player cable reception, airconditioners, stero systems, dishwashers. We start talking about tens of thousands of dollards instead of used more efficently are wasted. These are not things people who are on the brink of life and death should be investing in.

You realize in this stat they are showing people in "poverty" are spending hundreds of dollars on tv's and dvd players, and up to 62% have cable or satelite... an expense that could be between 50 and 100 dollars of expense MONTHLY!.... Its meant to show people are spending money on frivilious items instead of saving or investing in education etc.. No a 100 dollar tv is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but when you start adding everything up.. extra car, dvd player cable reception, airconditioners, stero systems, dishwashers. We start talking about tens of thousands of dollards instead of used more efficently are wasted. These are not things people who are on the brink of life and death should be investing in.

Well, I don't think that it's "meant" to show anything except what living conditions for America's poor are like.

But yeah... I can't be sympathetic toward someone who has cable or satellite but complains about not having health insurance.

Well, I don't think that it's "meant" to show anything except what living conditions for America's poor are like.

well thats not what the STUDY is trying to show.. but this was the point of the orginal poster.

What definition of poverty are they using, anyway? Is it based on income, the bottom-most octile, or what?

So they should walk the 75 miles to work? 90% of American big cities don't have public transportation, much less small cities or towns.

I'm going to address this specifically.

First, I dare you to identify an American city with a population greater than 100,000 that doesn't have a public transportation system. If you care to save time, you can just acknowledge that there isn't one. You can't just make facts up.

Secondly, you're implying that America's poor drive excessive distances to get to their places of employment. I dare you to back that assertion up. Let me save you some time: you're making that fact up as well.

Dang...

What definition of poverty are they using, anyway? Is it based on income, the bottom-most octile, or what?

Yes, they are basing it on the income levels within america which determine if you are impoverished or not.. generally people with an income under 15,000 a year. These are the same people some claim are on the verge of death and point out the growth of poverty is a highly alarming event.

I think that they're just upset because it compromises their class-warfare tactics.

So you are saying the Heritage Foundation doesn't have an agenda of their own?

What definition of poverty are they using, anyway? Is it based on income, the bottom-most octile, or what?


It's based on number of family members and household income.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/definitions.html

I would rather be poor in Norway or Sweden. hehe, but America is alright.

So you are saying the Heritage Foundation doesn't have an agenda of their own?

What you lack in analytic ability, you more than make up for in your ability to completely blur the topic of discussion.



I also notice that no one answered the question about evidence of unreliability.

I would rather be poor in Norway or Sweden. hehe, but America is alright.

Meh, you could be poor in Yemen...

What you lack in analytic ability, you more than make up for in your ability to completely blur the topic of discussion.


You didn't answer the question.

Ok so let's see some more insults. :rolleyes:

What you lack in analytic ability, you more than make up for in your ability to completely blur the topic of discussion.



I also notice that no one answered the question about evidence of unreliability.

they cannot.. because the same organization they depend on to show how bad the impoverished have, is the same organziation puting out this information .. >.> .. ahh the glory of unbias statistical analysis

they cannot.. because the same organization they depend on to show how bad the impoverished have, is the same organziation puting out this information .. >.> .. ahh the glory of unbias statistical analysis

hilarious :D

What definition of poverty are they using, anyway? Is it based on income, the bottom-most octile, or what?
The calculator the census usually uses is a combination of dependent children and income.

So you are saying the Heritage Foundation doesn't have an agenda of their own?
The numbers are indeed accurate. Accepting the authors conclusions is not necessary on your part though.

— Forty-six percent of all poor households 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 porch or patio.
- and they had how many kids? 4? oh and how about morgage?

— 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.
- they put them selves deeper into debt by using a/c which eats up electric.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- whats 6%? i bet its tons.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- but! whats the quality of their house?

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- they cant afford gas. therefore if they cant afford gas they get drive to work, making them poorer.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
- point being? an 13incher goes for 70 - 90 bux at walmart.

— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- ever hear of apex? thats some cheap dvd players.
- would they have a tv if they didnt have one of those?

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
- how about a real oven?
- again, walmart.
- used i suppose.

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 isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.
- whats the quality of the products? do they even work? did the pawn them for heat money?
- "able to obtain medical care" im thinking its only if he has a job willing to pay.
- "By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs." but not enough for school, anything that isnt on sale or cuponed, or jello.


As a whole, are we really so bad off?
- even if there's people who just get by.. where are those people in the ghetto and the projects? and in run down housing? i think this is some what "one sided" seeing as it says nothing about the worst poor people.

I believe the saying from the nineteen-thirties was that "Only in America can you drive to the poorhouse in an automobile."

You didn't answer the question.

Ok so let's see some more insults. :rolleyes:

I apologize for any undue sharpness in my comments.


But yes, I admit that the Heritage Foundation was agenda-driven when it brought these facts, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, to the attention of the major media outlets.


So back to my original question, which you so artfully dodged, what evidence do you have that Foxnews is factually unreliable?

—
Confused *snip*


Please use quote boxes next time. It makes it alot easier to read.

what evidence do you have that Foxnews is factually unreliable?
isnt fox news bias and in favor of republicans? EVIL.

Oh yeaaa I forgot he was in the group. Anybody ever remember Edwin Meese?

What was that quote of his where he said there were no poor people in america only people looking for a free lunch?

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/EdwinMeese.cfm

SIGH. This basically supports my theory that liberals are bad at math. I'm going to make two addresses--one specific, and one general.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- whats 6%? i bet its tons.

Specific: Nobody said that nobody in America is poor. But since you're bad at math, 6% means that 94 out of 100 of Americas poor are not living in overcrowded homes.

— Forty-six percent of all poor households 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 porch or patio.
- and they had how many kids? 4? oh and how about morgage?

— 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.
- they put them selves deeper into debt by using a/c which eats up electric.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- whats 6%? i bet its tons.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- but! whats the quality of their house?

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- they cant afford gas. therefore if they cant afford gas they get drive to work, making them poorer.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
- point being? an 13incher goes for 70 - 90 bux at walmart.

— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- ever hear of apex? thats some cheap dvd players.
- would they have a tv if they didnt have one of those?

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
- how about a real oven?
- again, walmart.
- used i suppose.

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 isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.
- whats the quality of the products? do they even work? did the pawn them for heat money?
- "able to obtain medical care" im thinking its only if he has a job willing to pay.
- "By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs." but not enough for school, anything that isnt on sale or cuponed, or jello.


As a whole, are we really so bad off?
- even if there's people who just get by.. where are those people in the ghetto and the projects? and in run down housing? i think this is some what "one sided" seeing as it says nothing about the worst poor people.

General: Yes, this these statistics are one-sided because the facts are one-sided. Again, nobody has said that nobody in America is truly impoverished.

P.S. "We have two color TVs, but they're only 13"... the horror! THE HORROR!" :)

isnt fox news bias and in favor of republicans? EVIL.

Well, AGAIN, I ask for evidence that their information is faulty. Of course, I'm not going to get an answer... (again)

Oh yeaaa I forgot he was in the group. Anybody ever remember Edwin Meese?

What was that quote of his where he said there were no poor people in america only people looking for a free lunch?

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/EdwinMeese.cfm

I take it by your silence on the matter that you conceed my point.

I'm going to address this specifically.

First, I dare you to identify an American city with a population greater than 100,000 that doesn't have a public transportation system. If you care to save time, you can just acknowledge that there isn't one. You can't just make facts up.

Secondly, you're implying that America's poor drive excessive distances to get to their places of employment. I dare you to back that assertion up. Let me save you some time: you're making that fact up as well.

Dang...
1. I believ there is transportation, but it is expensive. AND on the news i always see "PHILADELPHIA (i forget their name) ON STRIKE, YET AGAIN"

2. Look into prices, stops, hours, and tell me "its very easy to find access to stops and boarding."

"Secondly, you're implying that America's poor drive excessive distances to get to their places of employment."

1. you mean theres jobs down the street? oh come on.. what if you live in the middle of NO WHERE. so "Let me save you some time: you're making that fact up as well." is untrue.

May i have a cookie now?

1. I believ there is transportation, but it is expensive. AND on the news i always see "PHILADELPHIA (i forget their name) ON STRIKE, YET AGAIN"

2. Look into prices, stops, hours, and tell me "its very easy to find access to stops and boarding."

"Secondly, you're implying that America's poor drive excessive distances to get to their places of employment."

1. you mean theres jobs down the street? oh come on.. what if you live in the middle of NO WHERE. so "Let me save you some time: you're making that fact up as well." is untrue.

May i have a cookie now?
At least here in Columbus Ohio public transit is pleasantly cheap. It's typically like 1.50 for a bus ticket, and it lasts all day. Some bus stops are frequented more often than others. For example, the stops on high street get a bus every ten minutes or so, but elsewhere it's every twenty.

So back to my original question, which you so artfully dodged, what evidence do you have that Foxnews is factually unreliable?

Actually it wasn't a dodge. I didn't make a statement to their credibility. I try to avoid "infotainment" which is to say the major news groups seem to use these days. I tend to prefer the Washington Post for national news.

If you think I run puppets/aliases/etc. I don't.

My only comment was the story was based on the findings of the Heritage Foundation which has some rather very conservative people on it(ie ed meese).

I can only question their intent. Which could very well be that they view government assistance as a complete waste of money. Especially since they seem to paint a picture as things are no so bad....

I was a child of such assistance. Mom once admitted she did welfare after my great example of a father disappeared. She had no skills as her conservative household still viewed women either helped on the farm or worked in the house(my grandparents were farmers which I am not disparaging farmers. I respect it for the hard work they do. I know I worked it on summers). Back to the point at hand. She didn't think she would ever need to work and then she found herself with two children and no skills. She didn't want to do the two job thing as she felt that would be her life and she wouldn't be able to open very many doors for us. She did welfare and went to school at night. We didn't have much of the things the report mentioned. Mind you times were obviously different but woman's pay scales were also different as well.

Some conservatives would tell you welfare makes children go on welfare. Well Mom only did it for a year or two. She went on to be an RN and has about 45000 births in her career. She even testifies as an expert in birth lawsuits. Usually for the hospital.

My sister is a costume designer on Broadway and I am the WAN Engineer for a multinational.

Maybe it's my own experiences that make me go meh. However, I have also been in countries were poverty is horrible. Compared to them; yes the American poor are well off.

Now lets return from that tangent that explains were I am coming from:

The article mentioned that compared to a few generations ago they are well off. Probably a bad way to present it as did people have:

a VCR, DVD, Statelite TV? Obviously not.

However, they overlook that fact that things get cheaper over time. YOu were once considered well off if you had a color tv. I am dating myself but I remember having a black and white because they were cheaper of the two.

How much has steros, stoves, air conditioning units(not the big central types), refrigerators washers, dryers, and microwaves dropped over the years?

Now medical care? Do they define what is good medical care? How long has it been since we decided that neo-natal checkups actually save money in the long run. And yet do all the poor have access to that?

Now some various comments:

"Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home."

Ok that maybe true but in my case my father was and still is a fuckup. If he stayed around he probably would have kept us in the lower rungs of society. Let's not mention the abusive alcoholic types as well. Fathers at home don't always make the situation better.

"While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact."

My family is an exception. A couple of years was all we needed and I think we have paid more in taxes back then what we would have paid if we didn't try it out. Of course it's all hindsight.

"To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married."

Well open the doors of possibilities is more of an incentive then making them work.

Marriage skills? Ok I don't have the numbers but the high divorse rate of America is not mainly the poor(IMHO).

we solved that problem...being poor. we have no real money. but friskies for everyone!

why would a cat want to have paper with pictures of odd looking people on them? and it smells funny too.

why would a cat want to have paper with pictures of odd looking people on them? and it smells funny too.
Mine shreds it.

I'm going to address this specifically.

First, I dare you to identify an American city with a population greater than 100,000 that doesn't have a public transportation system. If you care to save time, you can just acknowledge that there isn't one. You can't just make facts up.

Saint Louis, Missouri. I live there. Technically there is a bus system. That bus system is so crappy that it is much quicker to walk. They are attempting to build a subway-type system but the white people won't have of it. They are doing about all they can to make it stop, which leaves us with one that is highly ineffective and rather expensive. To live in Saint Louis without a car, city or county, is not an easy thing to do.

Saint Louis, Missouri. I live there. Technically there is a bus system. That bus system is so crappy that it is much quicker to walk. They are attempting to build a subway-type system but the white people won't have of it. They are doing about all they can to make it stop, which leaves us with one that is highly ineffective and rather expensive. To live in Saint Louis without a car, city or county, is not an easy thing to do.

Awfully racist, isn't it?

Awfully racist, isn't it?

I think it is horrible. All of the white people in the counties are afraid the blacks in the city are going to hop on the subway, ride forty five minutes out to where the whites are, break into their houses, steal their TV and then hop back on that subway, TV in hand. (St. Louis is very segregated, I believe it may be the most in the country if I remember correctly)

I think it is horrible. All of the white people in the counties are afraid the blacks in the city are going to hop on the subway, ride forty five minutes out to where the whites are, break into their houses, steal their TV and then hop back on that subway, TV in hand. (St. Louis is very segregated, I believe it may be the most in the country if I remember correctly)

You arn't helping your cause by generalizing as much as you are.

You arn't helping your cause by generalizing as much as you are.

Really? My finding it rediculous that people in the county which are like 99% white keep voting on allowing public transportation to be extended to their areas and the result is always a resounding no? Or the fact that currently they are working on getting a referendum to prohibit government funding of any public transportation. They are even attempting to prevent it from happening in the inner city. They are having trouble completing the current projects because of the opposition.

I don't mean to say that some aren't for it. However, those who aren't against it vehemently, seem to be rather indifferent and I consider that just bad.

They have a right to their opinions, just as you do. Perhaps they do not approve of public transportation for some reason. Who knows?

As one of those "White People", I find it really offensive that you group everyone with light pigment into this massive group.

They have a right to their opinions, just as you do. Perhaps they do not approve of public transportation for some reason. Who knows?

As one of those "White People", I find it really offensive that you group everyone with light pigment into this massive group.

They are opposed to it because they are afraid of black people infiltrating their white suburban neighborhoods.

As for you being offended, you should probably get used to it.

— Forty-six percent of all poor households 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 porch or patio.

Do they mean homes such as this one?

http://www.pcatm.org/categories/landscapes/landscapesjpgs/fieldcabin.jpg

I saw many homes such as these, driving through southeast US. Many hadn't seen a lick of paint since God knows when. Many had no shingles and holes in the roofs.

Where do the other 54% live? Tenement slums in the cities?

Perhaps these people live better than say the people of Afghanistan but the cost of living is much higher in the US.

Colour TV's used to be a status symbol and now you can pick one up a new for $100. As far as VCR's are concerned, Sony Beta Max was selling for $1,500, and now you can buy a VCR or DVD for $30 or $40.

If they do own a car, I can just imagine what kind of condition it is in.

As far as health insurance is concerned, 45 Million Americans don't have any, so I don't know what they are referring to, especially considering that the infant mortality rate for blacks in the US is twice as high as it is for whites.

Articles such as the one by Fox, just adds to the problem? Poverty is increasing in the US not decreasing. How many of those living in poverty are single moms, whose children have been abandoned by deadbeat dads or whose husband/significant other is in jail?

Poverty is certainly a complex problem but there are solutions. Some of the solutions are Draconian and others are more long term but nevertheless progressive in nature.

Articles such as the one by Fox attempts to downplay the realities of those trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty and despair. Dangerous material indeed.

They are opposed to it because they are afraid of black people infiltrating their white suburban neighborhoods.

As for you being offended, you should probably get used to it.


Why should I get used to being offended racially?

Perhaps they have a more legitimate reason for resisting public transportation. Mabye they dont want to pay taxes for it. Perhaps everything is not as "Black and White" as you see it as.

They live in Brooklyn, LA and the Bronx, inner city Philadelphia, etc.

They live in apartment complexes, or fully attached brownstones down the street from those complexes, and deal with loud music at odd hours of the night, drug dealers on every other block, grafitti on random signs and buildings or mail boxes, the occasional burnt out car, or broken window. You know, the poor don't have it so bad, if you don't take into account to earn these lovely accomodations, you have to have 2 jobs, or 3 if you have a spouses income.

And those are only the 'working poor.' There are much worse, like those who had to take jobs at mcDonalds to pay rent, rather than finish high school, or indians on reservations who can't afford to hire people, but won't be hired off the reservation, Mexican americans who just recently got their green cards but can't get any jobs that are on the books for the lack of a skill and/or education (ie. NO minimum wage).

But people don't even judge poverty by the method a person gains their livelihood, even if they work 80 or 90 hours a week in order to get it. It's not Fox's fault, it's a very common societal blind spot; people think if you can afford your house and air conditioning, you're not bad off. They just go ahead and ignore the fact that you had to practically kill yourself for the privelage.

How is this life? you live life a machine so that your family can have a better opportunity, and perhaps a slightly easier time getting ahead. It's sacrifice. What happens to these people if they get injured? what happens to these people when they get old? What if there's an accident and they die, what happens to the rest of the family?

And if you don't even have affirmative action working with you, you're even more disadvantaged, because you're disadvantaged and getting put to the back of the line. Or say you're legit, and you work say, 60 hours, and make enough to get to the next tax bracket, holy hell you're screwed, because then you get NO government help AND you get the honor of paying more taxes from your hard earned wages. All for food, your children's education, air conditioning, and perhaps owning your own house, probably with a mortgage that you will never be able to pay off.

It's not a racial issue, it's not a partisan issue. Theres a sore blindspot, at least in American society (because that's really all I have observed, but im sure we're not alone). When it becomes a racial or partisan issue, thats when we don't achieve any progress. That only causes bickering between civil or political groups, which wastes money, effort, causes violence, and makes things worse. It's an unintentional 'divide and conquer.' Fox did nothing different; they just reported what they saw, and what 75% of the rest of America sees.

I apologize if what I've said was covered already, but I came in late :P

Do they mean homes such as this one?

http://www.pcatm.org/categories/landscapes/landscapesjpgs/fieldcabin.jpg

I saw many homes such as these, driving through southeast US. Many hadn't seen a lick of paint since God knows when. Many had no shingles and holes in the roofs.

Where do the other 54% live? Tenement slums in the cities?

Perhaps these people live better than say the people of Afghanistan but the cost of living is much higher in the US.

Colour TV's used to be a status symbol and now you can pick one up a new for $100. As far as VCR's are concerned, Sony Beta Max was selling for $1,500, and now you can buy a VCR or DVD for $30 or $40.

If they do own a car, I can just imagine what kind of condition it is in.

As far as health insurance is concerned, 45 Million Americans don't have any, so I don't know what they are referring to, especially considering that the infant mortality rate for blacks in the US is twice as high as it is for whites.

Articles such as the one by Fox, just adds to the problem? Poverty is increasing in the US not decreasing. How many of those living in poverty are single moms, whose children have been abandoned by deadbeat dads or whose husband/significant other is in jail?

Poverty is certainly a complex problem but there are solutions. Some of the solutions are Draconian and others are more long term but nevertheless progressive in nature.

Articles such as the one by Fox attempts to downplay the realities of those trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty and despair. Dangerous material indeed.

Is this down playing the reality of poverty or revealing a reality of it, many of us ignore.. Every day on CNN, NYtimes wutever your news source is, we see Impoversihed world wide, starving bearly living. Then we hear poverty on the rise, 12%.. and think god things are bad. The reality is, the impoverished in this nation live like kings compared to those in the thrid world.

As well I belive this serves another purpose, to show a certain level of fiscal irrosbilitbity on the part of those in poverty to some extent, were monies which come so far and few between are frviously spent rather then invested and saved. This is the reality of America, with such poor fiscal disipline.. is it any wonder why so many people fall into poverty, why so many more remain there. Poverty in america is not need be constant... people rise from poverty everyday through HARD work and disipline.

This only serves the argument ive made all the time, we need to refocus our efforts away from telling the impoverished how bad they have it, looking to give them a hand out.. and instead give them a hand up promoting self determination.

As well I belive this serves another purpose, to show a certain level of fiscal irrosbilitbity on the part of those in poverty to some extent, were monies which come so far and few between are frviously spent rather then invested and saved. This is the reality of America, with such poor fiscal disipline.. is it any wonder why so many people fall into poverty, why so many more remain there. Poverty in america is not need be constant... people rise from poverty everyday through HARD work and disipline.


So what you're saying is that because they're not as poor as some 3rd world nations' poor, they therefore must be irresponsible? wow. What about cost of living?

Which of the people are irresponsible? the ones on food stamps who buy food with it? or the people who don't recieve any aid at all but work like dogs to achieve a very minimal satisfaction of seeing their children able to succeed?

Where should the former invest their food stamps? And what of the latter, should they put money into stocks instead of a MORE peaceful living environment rather than a roach infested hovel?

You completely overlooked, and yet reaffirmed my contention that people ignore the 'WHAT PEOPLE DO' to live for the 'HOW' they live.

A) food stamps are humiliating.
B) working obscene hours for enough money to live with SOME luxury

It's not the same as some 3rd world nations' poor, you're right. Homeless people on the bowery aren't even as poor as them. It must be so much better to be homeless!