Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope....if you aren't making enough money to afford food,housing,or medical care,the idea that you should keep your toys is a little odd to me.
A question,you get a pay cut at work and suddenly money is tight.You own a $5000 four wheeler,a $15,000 camper and a $10,000 boat.
Should you get welfare to help pay the bills or perhaps try and sell the items to get more money?
Oh, yes, I'm sure that the eight out of ten people who own a VCR (when's the last time you saw a VHS tape outside of a public library or your grandparents' house?) could get a pretty penny for that at a garage sale. Get a grip.
Again, we're talking about census data reflecting the total number of people living at poverty income levels, not the number of people on the public assistance roles. That data would be more relevant to this discussion.
Poverty threshold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Absolute poverty:
It is a level of poverty as defined in terms of the minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food, clothing, health care and shelter.
Relative poverty:
The term relative poverty can also be used in a different sense to mean "moderate poverty" –- for example, a standard of living or level of income that is high enough to satisfy basic needs (like water, food, clothing, shelter, and basic health care), but still significantly lower than that of the majority of the population under consideration.
Thank you for that.
So then I ask, why are people defending those who fall under relative poverty? Why use the sympathy card for these people because of their choices?
You evidently have a very specific agenda and I can't figure out what it is.
People have not been agitated about the working poor! That is a misrepresentation of the majority of comments on this thread!
No one wants the elderly, infirm or TEMPORARILY out of work to be homeless or living a wretched life!
What folks are objecting to is how many folks have gamed the system - and managed to essentially life a "middle class lifestyle" without paying the taxes that go along with what the rest of us have to earn to live that lifestyle!
Maybe you simply do not understand (or believe) how many people have managed to figure out a way to stay within the poverty guidelines of this government - and still live a pretty decent life - while the rest of us are in debt and struggling, making higher salaries and being forced to hand over our hard earned dollars, as taxes, so others can be SLACKERS. Look at the poverty guideline charts. A single person is paying taxes and getting no benefits at the same level a woman w/ 3 kids is getting every possible benefit, from housing assistance to medicaid, food stamps, free childcare, etc. It is maddening if you see this going on around you = and you can't afford any extras - but the folks getting the handouts CAN AFFORD IT.
And how many people do you think that is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0tmess
Perhaps in some cases, that was the reasoning on becoming 'poor' in the first place?
This is what I (and others) mean. It's not about true hard working honest people down on their luck. We are talking about the "poor" who end up being "poor" because of their own, awful, personal spending habits.
So again, you demonize them because they don't make your spending choices?
Quote:
Why should we feel bad that you blow through your paycheck over the weekend? Why didn't you TRY and save money? (This is speaking about said person before they become 'poor', just FYI)
You have 2 different kinds of poor people:
1) The kind that are truly down on their luck and can never seem to catch a break.
2) The kind that have 0 money management skills.
Based on those 2 examples, we can all agree that #1 should be helped. But why #2?
They are both in need of assistance, and nothing is stating the #2 is there because of their management ability. I don't know many people making $23,000 who managed to save up $200,000 in case of disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercalifornian
The data refers to all households meeting the income requirements for poverty, not just those receiving public assistance. Again, the article's title is terribly misleading and meant to inflame outrage among people who don't read critically. Oh, look, the Heritage Foundation accomplished its goal!
lol. Yeah, they aren't exactly the most non-biased of think-tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
I do believe if you meet the income requirements for poverty,you would be eligible for welfare.
Oh, yes, I'm sure that the eight out of ten people who own a VCR (when's the last time you saw a VHS tape outside of a public library or your grandparents' house?) could get a pretty penny for that at a garage sale. Get a grip.
Over 63% of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Over 54% have a cell phone.
Almost 18% have a big screen TV.
Thank you for that.
So then I ask, why are people defending those who fall under relative poverty? Why use the sympathy card for these people because of their choices?
Because there is an underlying agenda in America that everyone MUST be equal and have the same "stuff".
And most Americans hear "poor" and think destitute poverty. They don't bother to read or educate themselves.
Just look at some of the posts here..some posters have no clue about relative poverty. It's relative to what everyone else has regardless of whether or not they can afford it. And this is our government pushing this crap.
That's funny, for many years after I graduated from college I rented an apartment which didn't have A.C. no dryer or washer, no cable. I never owned an Xbox. My TV was a small 13 inch hand me down from my parents. My car at the time was 10 years old with rust, and no working AC either. I couldn't afford these things at the time. I never considered myself poor either.
I did have a stove and running water, but I never considered that to be a luxury, I guess I'm not a Republican.
You see, where I live, we make an emphasis on choice. And has already been demonstrated, selling your Xbox isn't going to pay your bills. Selling all of your luxury items isn't going to pay your bills.
Unless you own a Ferrari. And if you own a Ferrari, there is a good chance you've already been able to afford making mistakes, something those already in the low-income brackets can't do. But this thread really isn't about making mistakes.
Quote:
Are you asserting they are NOT collecting welfare?
They could be, they might not be, either way, how is that problematic?
So again, you demonize them because they don't make your spending choices?
They are both in need of assistance, and nothing is stating the #2 is there because of their management ability. I don't know many people making $23,000 who managed to save up $200,000 in case of disaster. .
Both of these statements make 0 sense!
First of all, what about my spending choices, hmm? Because I show personal responsibility? If someone has a monthly living expense of $1400 a month (this includes food and gas or public transportation), and makes $1500 a month...and each month they fall short a few HUNDRED dollars. How is that not their fault? They are short $500 this month in bills, but yet they have a few new DVDs, new shoes, they went out to eat at a few places, etc.
How and why does this person in this example need help when they make $100 more in a month then what they need? Why can't this said person save $50 of that $100 and spend the other $50 on wants? Oh, $50 isn't a lot and that's sad..so they should just buy luxury items and make welfare pic up the rest?
The other part of this example is that ALL I said was $1400 a month living expenses. Maybe they could cut some EXTRAS out on the grocery bill (Like sodas and chips if they were buying it). Maybe they don't need the cable plan that they have and could lower it, maybe they don't need the cell phone they have and could lower that.
Those 3 examples could land this example person an extra $100 a month. Now they can spend $100 on their wants and save $100.
Or could save it all. Realistically this person could save $1200 a year or more. It's not a lot, but it's still saving money just in case.
Why are people so against personal responsibility?
Because there is an underlying agenda in America that everyone MUST be equal and have the same "stuff".
And most Americans hear "poor" and think destitute poverty. They don't bother to read or educate themselves.
Just look at some of the posts here..some posters have no clue about relative poverty. It's relative to what everyone else has regardless of whether or not they can afford it. And this is our government pushing this crap.
Here is your soundbyte.
I have no problem with programs which help to redistribute the wealth towards the bottom 80%. ****, I'd love to have even the estimated distribution a reality. At least poor people would have money and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
