The most recent Census data shows that about 48.5 million people, or 16% of the population, are living in poverty.

The recession pushed millions of Americans into poverty, and although the economy is now improving, wages are still lagging, and people continue to struggle nationwide.

For many, the only recourse is to turn to safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps), child care assistance, TANF, and unemployment benefits, to name a few.

These government programs exist to help those in need – and they really work, lifting millions out of poverty every year.

Still, many Americans would rather pretend poverty isn’t an issue in our country.

Worse yet, they’d prefer to blame low-income people for their status while supporting plans to dismantle the safety net.


Read More at: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/how-we-ignore-poverty-and-blame-poor-people/

There's the truly impoverished and there's them wut lives in luxury scamming the taxpayers.

and there are laws to deal with them when they are found

just like any other area where fraud exists,,,

16% of the U.S. population lives like this?

A few of my Mexican friends live like that.

They'd think they died and gone to heaven if they woke up one day living in a mansion in a gated hood.

some live like this




and like this





and like this




and many other living environments,, why do you ask?

Does 16% of the U.S. population live like that?

How is the author of the article you quote defining poverty?

since the article refers to the census, I would figure upon using the definition by the census:

The poverty rate is one of several socioeconomic indicators used by policy makers to evaluate economic conditions. It measures the percentage of people whose income fell below the poverty threshold

poverty threshold can be foud here

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

This thread is being interrupted so that I can give msharmony something for Valentine's Day:



I disagree with her at times, but she is still my friend.


We now continue with this thread which is already in progress ...

***********************



That is a reasonable answer, but is the definition of "poverty" used by the U.S. government accurate?

ty for the flower

I don't understand your question though

how can a definition be accurate or inaccurate, it just is,,

poverty: state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

in American society, americans have defined what is 'socially acceptable' to live on and with,, or without

Does the American definition of "poverty" match that of people who live in third-world nations?

I do not think so.

My point is that the definition of "poverty" can be quite subjective.

So, if you want to talk about "demonizing the poor", then are the poor people in third-world nations being demonized?

well, I was actually speaking in the context of the USA

in speaking with people here, I do believe that third world nations are demonized by nature of being considered 'third world'


but Im not following why you point out the subjectivity of poverty in a global context

for certain there are some 'more' impoverished than others, but that does not negate that the 'less' impoverished are stil, ,impoverished,,,

In a recent sermon, LifeChurch.TV senior pastor Craig Groesche states that if you earn $33,000/year, then you are among the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

So, what does it mean to be impoverished?

From Wikipedia:

"The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO (with the United States, Western European nations and their allies representing the First World), or the Communist Bloc (with the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, and their allies representing the Second World)."

FWIW ...

Mingle2 is an international website, and some of its members live in third-world nations, as defined by Wikipedia. So, it is ethnocentric to talk about poverty from just an American perspective.

I agree that we should not demonize the poor. We need to demonize the federal government for keeping them poor.

The only way, or HOPEFULLY at least, that the government will stop and take a good look at what they caused, is to not vote for ANY of them. Nada. None of them. We don't hardly ever agree with what they do, so why the heck do we bother voting? Surely, if they suddenly didn't recieve any votes at all, it would make them ask us why. A blank ballot box would worry them. Well maybe that's what's needed. Otherwise, all that will happen is the same old crap. And people who are already poor enough, will just keep getting poorer. I know their game. So do many others.

still means the same thing

state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

so, I guess IM ethnocentric when I speak as an American of my American experience

no intent to offend anyone in doing so,,,,


like people who are kidnapped and refer to the 'torture' of being locked up or raped don't mean to offend those in other countries who are captured and 'tortured' with waterboarding or amputations,,,

we are aware there are always those who have it 'worse'

but yet we still seek to make how WE have it more acceptable and fair to US,,,,

I don't think we need to demonize/scapegoat anyone, government nor the poor. I think WE as a society(that's inclusive of myself, the government and every class of citizen) need to care about each other as a mainstay of the culture, as much as revering the flag, or the constitution,

and we would see things change drastically.