Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Addressing poverty without demonizing the poor...
alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 05:34 AM
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/ Just another socialist propaganda hype at why the government didn't get to rob more in taxes to give to those that won't take care of themselves. "These government programs exist to help those in need - and they really work, lifting millions out of poverty every year." Obviously they don't work as blatantly shown here. Prior to the government "taking" over, religious and other charitable organizations "helped" those down on their luck and always had more than enough money to take care of things. Of course, it was kind of hard to bull your local church or charitable organization that knew you. But no, government knew better and now need to rob more and more just to keep up. Also, when this country was young, our forefathers ventured forth to explore and develop wild lands and were able to care from themselves. Then came the industrial way of life where people put their lives into the hands of others. And what has they got us, a bunch of lazy bums that believe someone owes them something, an entitlement to live. So go get a job at McDonald's and learn to live within your means, a huge segment of retirees on Social Security live on much less.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 05:37 AM
and there are laws to deal with them when they are found just like any other area where fraud exists,,, If that were true, then why isn't Odumbo in jail? But hey look at the ex-mayor of New Orleans, 20 years wasn't it?

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 05:40 AM
some live like this Hey I love this one, is that pile of stuff things that have been stolen from unoccupied houses? And I bet they are on welfare and get food stamps but just have to supplement their incomes.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 05:58 AM
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 Wouldn't it just be a shame if the "policy makers" didn't know that the crap policies that make weren't achieving their desired goals. With the poverty rate climbing they have obviously thought they weren't doing enough and took action. poverty threshold can be foud here http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html And so your source is an unconstitutional act by the government. By what authority does the census bureau collect this type data? Article 1, Section 2 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;" Article 1, Section 9 "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The power so authorized in the constitution in regards to census was for one distinct purpose to determine two things, representation in the house and taxes to be proportioned to the states.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 06:03 AM
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 BS, if it isn't accurate it isn't a definition just conjecture. So Willing does have a point, those Mexicans seem to be content so that would be "socially acceptable", after all they are Americans.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 06:13 AM
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,,, So what you are trying to insinuate is that if I could only afford a T-Bone steak, I would be more impoverished than those that could afford the Fillet Mignon but less impoverished than the ones that could only afford New York Strip. And if you are lower down the food chain, if I can afford 95% lean hamburger I would be less impoverished than the next chap that has to survive on more fat with 85% lean but is better off than that poor slob that has to do with 70% lean. But where do we put those that have to eat dog food? How about those sitting on the ground waiting to die from starvation? Just imagine us poor citizens of the US that need more food stamps because we just don't get enough beer.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 06:17 AM
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. That wont stop them, if nobody voted then the election is a tie to be resolved by..... you guessed it, themselves. It is only an illusion that the voters are needed. And by the way, elections are already determined, your representative has already been chosen but they don't want you to miss a great show.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 06:19 AM
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? still means the same thing state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions Still same meaningless statement irregardless of how many times it is repeated.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 06:23 AM
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. 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,,,, Speak as an "American", hardly. An "American" experience, not in reality. Understanding what an "American" is, definitely not.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 06:28 AM
I agree that we should not demonize the poor. We need to demonize the federal government for keeping them poor. 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. Never going to happen. I for one could care less about those that don't care for themselves. I am willing to lend a helping hand but I refuse to carry you. And society, what is that? Is it not something you need to be a member of? How do you become a member? I know I never have nor ever will join something so arbitrary.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 02/15/14 08:06 AM Edited by Dodo_David on Sat 02/15/14 08:07 AM
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? still means the same thing state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions In other words, the definition of impoverished is subjective. So, in order to have a standard for comparison, let's use the version of "impoverished" seen in third-world nations (using the Wikipedia description of Third World). Are the impoverished people in such nations being vilified? No, being called "Third World" isn't vilification. For example, are these people being vilified?

wickeddesires Joined Fri 12/20/13 Posts: 43	Sat 02/15/14 08:29 AM
The USA is horrific at demonizing the poor..infact they are the worst at it The current UK government (imo a collection of clowns in no touch with the general reality of the bulk of the populas - most of the cabinet are millionaires- Inherited btw) aspires to do likewise, and is currently doing so in a diabolical & nefarious fashion It gives joe public someone to hate, told to hate and despise and how they are being cheated out of cash – that is why they do it. Joe public, aka the ordinary man and women, need someone to blame for (insert any reason whatsoever)…eg say a squeeze on muffin(cake) cash to spend at the end of the day. And they are told work shy malingers and Johnny foreigners are all to blame for the attrocioud fraud rate of 1% if it is that. Whilst corporations and the rich firmly believe in paying no tax, corporation tax, their share of the tax..and they view it not as fraud… why! we are rich and toffs and chipping in as we sit on piles of gold purloined from the bulk of the population and its poor scroungers fault..everything (insert no coherent reason) Did not one of your presidents openly embrace mother Teresa – whose premise is no-one ever alone and destitute..and a variety of gods depending on belief system but contradicting that with the market..wolf of wall street seems fair reflection..as does our latest banks bonus pot…..despite them and their ideology and wanton greed bring the normal person to their knees

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 08:30 AM
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? still means the same thing state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions In other words, the definition of impoverished is subjective. So, in order to have a standard for comparison, let's use the version of "impoverished" seen in third-world nations (using the Wikipedia description of Third World). Are the impoverished people in such nations being vilified? No, being called "Third World" isn't vilification. For example, are these people being vilified? But while most humans would rather lift themselves above this and others want to be lifted above this, let's look at reality. They seem to have a place to rest their weary head, they have clothes on their back and "mom" seems to have food in her hand. All that is really necessary for existence. But what is really being proclaimed in this post is that those incapable of doing so themselves deserve to be lifted higher by others, not voluntary, but mandated. My point is to take your mandate and shove it where the sun don't shine. "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 02/15/14 08:37 AM
But what is really being proclaimed in this post is that those incapable of doing so themselves deserve to be lifted higher by others, not voluntary, but mandated. My point is to take your mandate and shove it where the sun don't shine Mandate? Who is promoting a mandate?

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 02/15/14 09:10 AM
But what is really being proclaimed in this post is that those incapable of doing so themselves deserve to be lifted higher by others, not voluntary, but mandated. My point is to take your mandate and shove it where the sun don't shine Mandate? Who is promoting a mandate? Title 26 US Code is a good place to start. Odumbocare would be another. Food Sramps come to mind. Section 8 is a thought. Need I go on?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 02/15/14 12:07 PM
... They seem to have a place to rest their weary head, they have clothes on their back and "mom" seems to have food in her hand. All that is really necessary for existence. Dude, if you think that the people in the photo have "all that is really necessary for existence", then I have some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 02/15/14 12:23 PM
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? still means the same thing state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions Still same meaningless statement irregardless of how many times it is repeated. take it up with Webster or publish a dictionary of your own perhaps, with definitions that meet your approval..

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 02/15/14 12:25 PM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sat 02/15/14 12:27 PM
The USA is horrific at demonizing the poor..infact they are the worst at it The current UK government (imo a collection of clowns in no touch with the general reality of the bulk of the populas - most of the cabinet are millionaires- Inherited btw) aspires to do likewise, and is currently doing so in a diabolical & nefarious fashion It gives joe public someone to hate, told to hate and despise and how they are being cheated out of cash – that is why they do it. Joe public, aka the ordinary man and women, need someone to blame for (insert any reason whatsoever)…eg say a squeeze on muffin(cake) cash to spend at the end of the day. And they are told work shy malingers and Johnny foreigners are all to blame for the attrocioud fraud rate of 1% if it is that. Whilst corporations and the rich firmly believe in paying no tax, corporation tax, their share of the tax..and they view it not as fraud… why! we are rich and toffs and chipping in as we sit on piles of gold purloined from the bulk of the population and its poor scroungers fault..everything (insert no coherent reason) Did not one of your presidents openly embrace mother Teresa – whose premise is no-one ever alone and destitute..and a variety of gods depending on belief system but contradicting that with the market..wolf of wall street seems fair reflection..as does our latest banks bonus pot…..despite them and their ideology and wanton greed bring the normal person to their knees yep,Mother Teresa! Money is too clean for what Mother Teresa was after! Mother Teresa NEEDED the Poor!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 02/15/14 12:25 PM
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? still means the same thing state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions In other words, the definition of impoverished is subjective. So, in order to have a standard for comparison, let's use the version of "impoverished" seen in third-world nations (using the Wikipedia description of Third World). Are the impoverished people in such nations being vilified? No, being called "Third World" isn't vilification. For example, are these people being vilified? well,Im concerned about what your point might be, seriously. In this country, we demonize OUR Poor, and in those countries, you can bet that they demonize THEIR poor too but how can I possibly address the needs and culture of a nation I have never lived in and why cant I simply speak about the needs and culture of the nation in which I do live should we only concern ourself once the situation diminishes to the lowest in the WORLD? or can we get concerned long before then so that it doesn't?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 02/15/14 12:33 PM
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,,, So what you are trying to insinuate is that if I could only afford a T-Bone steak, I would be more impoverished than those that could afford the Fillet Mignon but less impoverished than the ones that could only afford New York Strip. And if you are lower down the food chain, if I can afford 95% lean hamburger I would be less impoverished than the next chap that has to survive on more fat with 85% lean but is better off than that poor slob that has to do with 70% lean. But where do we put those that have to eat dog food? How about those sitting on the ground waiting to die from starvation? Just imagine us poor citizens of the US that need more food stamps because we just don't get enough beer. in some screwed up culture where it was not socially acceptable to not have steak,, your analogy would be relevant I don't think we have such a culture,,,, but perception is reality (to the individual) its interesting how the poverty issue becomes merely 'subjective' but corruption isn't treated with the same brush off,, as in, our politicians are not nearly as corrupt as other countries so should we really be concerned with their 'corruption'? and crime isn't treated with the same brush off as in, other countries have far more violent environments, so should we really be concerned with the violent crime in the USA>? ,, yes, all descriptions can be 'subjective' all adjectives can be 'subjective' but, by the culture WE live in and the standards WE use in our discussion and research on poverty, there is certainly the ability to understand what is meant when we speak of poverty in America at least by anyone who reads and isn't too above the rest of the world to agree upon the oommon and documented definitions..