This is interesting..

It seems that certain people have no issue demonizing others that make money.

You can't have it both ways.

Concise assessment.

people who have shouldn't be demonized either, people who have and are happy and boastful to see others suffer should be,,,,

most everyone in my life 'has', though still have struggles,

so its unfortunate if anyone perceives my posts as demonizing the 'haves',,,

I don't recall posting photos of middle class neighborhoods with statements about how its probably their daddys money or how they probably married into it,,,etc,

or posting photos of castles in other countries and making statements about how we have it so wrong to consider those in mansions as rich

or using words like 'dahling' when discussing the haves, or words like 'totally rad' or 'tubular' when discussing the haves who happen to be white,,,

etc



I see a big difference, its unfortunate if others don't,,,,

So, you are addressing what a few people on this website have been saying about poor Americans.

At least you have narrowed the topic.

not just here, in the media as well,, its not so narrow,,,

Please cite a media source that isn't a website dedicated to promoting feminism.

I don;t think we demonize the real poor who are truly down on their luck or not capable (for mental or physical reasons) of sustaining employment.

I think we are critical of those who make receiving entitlement funds into a career, and rightly so. So there need to be limits. There is no reason why a middle class citizen who faithfully goes to WORK everyday should be unable to buy a home and pay off a student loan in this country because he is taxed at such a high rate to support those who take drugs, sit around & watch TV,& refuse to go to work or go to school. Obviously not all of the poor are doing that, but there are those who can work who do not.

I think if we first remove the employable from the dole, and the cheaters, we can then move on to fairly apportion entitlements to those who are truly unable to work. For those who need emergency assistance, the payments cannot be so much that it is a disincentive to finding a job. Raising the min. wage is a good option too. The more who work, even at min. wage, the more peeps who pay into the system. The very rich and corporations need to shoulder their fare share also. The middle class is disappearing in this country because our standard of middle class living is decreasing, mainly because we are asked to contribute a disproportionate amount to gov't, hence entitlements via taxes.

but why does any discussion of poverty become derailed and defined (by many people) by focusing on the EXCEPTIONS who are fraudulent?

and since there are already time caps on receiving assistance, in place since the late 90s , why is there still this idea out there that people are 'making a career' of it?

all of these things are ways to 'demonize' an entire demographic and dismantle the REAL halp that the majority truly need to try to stop the exceptions who don't,,,,

is there some reason that lower class people (who don't pay an income tax) who work should not be able to buy a home or pay off a student loan?

middle and upper class, by way of their income (Which may or may not be any more 'earned' than that of those making little enough to not make the cut) enjoy certain UPGRADES to their life, certain resources and priviliges that come with it,,

I think the start of the problem is this idea of all 'taxpaying' classes being more hard working and deserving of a basic life of food and safe haven

how will we determine, and who will determine, those who are receiving funds as a career and those who are doing it out of their geographic economy and need?




I am grateful for balanced response such as yours that actually poses some suggestions, and I agree that {like in any other area of life}, there are people receiving welfare fraudulently,

Im not sure what else can be done to avoid that though,( and I believe it to be much more the exception than the rule )

other than prosecuting it when it is discovered,,

How does having a college education make a person "lower class"? The last time that I checked, those with student loans to pay off have college degrees.

Also, is there a reason why a "lower class" person "must" buy a home instead of renting one?

no

my question relates to the post before it,,,

and many people have student loans without ever graduating,

and I didn't tie in holding a degree with being lower class

I tied lower class to those people not earning enough to pay (federal income) TAXES,,,

who many of those who do pay taxes feel are somehow

taking their money

You have the support of a very wise American...

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
- Benjamin Franklin

"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."
- Benjamin Franklin

Folks, the causes of poverty can be complex, and cases of poverty aren't necessarily identical.

Yes, sometimes a person's behavior can lead a person to becoming poor. However, there are too many cases in which poverty is due circumstances beyond a person's control.

If you don't know the causes of a person's poverty because you never investigated that case as an individual case, then it is best to start by giving that person the benefit of the doubt.

The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" pertains to people in poverty, too.

FOLKS, there are many good reasons for Welfare to be investigating for fraud.

If the leeches are burned off, the body will likely live longer.

Folks, there is one and only one cause for poverty, the lack of means to not be considered in poverty.

But the real debate here is what is poverty? How do you define it?

What if you were to earn $12,000 a year would you be in poverty? What if at the end of the year all your needs were met and you have a $2,000 reserve of funds that you didn't spend?

But that is not what is being stated herein. Most of the posts here are trying to pick some arbitrary number that if you are below, you need to have someone else supplement your being, in other words, entitlements.

if you are in a culture where 10000 a year for safehaven and adequate food and resources,,, maybe

but in this culture, that's going to be considered poverty, as its not gonna happen that one can have safehaven and food and education/childcare (while they EARN that 1000) for themselves and children for less than 1000 a month without SOME assistance from somewhere,,

the 'povery' line here in Nevada is 969 for two people per month,, the average RENT in Nevada for 1 bedroom is 800 dollars, that doesn't include utilities, transportation, communication(phone), and food

yeah, I would think someone raising a child with only a thousand dollars a month would accurately be considered in 'poverty' and need of assistance,,

ty

Who said anything about raising a child? A prudent person that is making ends meet would not be considered a prudent person if they try to include someone else. Besides, raising a child would require another person, hopefully another prudent person. If that be the case, then between the two of them, expenses would be reduced and there would be even more money available. More than enough to add another member to the family.

No what you are espousing is the freeloader mentality, screw the consequences let others take care of what you fail to plan. The person that lives in the moment and could care less of the consequences. That is what you are trying to instill as poverty, the freeloader.

And for some reason, people think they are entitled to what they can't afford. If you can't afford a one bedroom, then look for someone to share a two bedroom and lower the rent to $450. Add reasonable utilities and there is still enough for food. Transportation, shoe leather is not that expensive and why do you need a phone you can't afford. You want to talk to someone, use some shoe leather and walk over to visit them.

Else, it's all back to entitlements and the failure to have responsibility for one's self.

Really, see post above. Accept some responsibility.

deal with reality for a change

most people don't have the luxury of your ideal foretunetelling world


where they have a plan to be able to do the job of TWO people by themselves,,,

parenting IS a two person job at least, there is no foretelling when ONE might drop out and leave the other in need they would not have if there were still two 'prudent' people

there is no foretelling if a person becomes sick for an extended time so they cant bring in the income of a 'prudent' person

there is no fortelling of a person being cut from a job that allowed them the 'prudent' persons resources


most on welfare are disabled, elderly, or with CHILDREN to care for,,,

try to stop judging for once , life throws people a lot of curveballs they couldn't foresee for no matter how 'prudent' they are,,,


its called a safety net because sometimes people 'fall' no matter how 'prudent' they were being,,

What msharmony says is accurate.

For example, who could have foreseen my late wife developing cancer a year after my son was born? Who could have foreseen my late wife dying a few short years later?

Who could have foreseen me developing a medical condition that has rendered me unable to work outside the home?

[Side Note: It normally hurts like hell for me to use my computer, but I do so for brief periods of time so that I am not completely isolated from the outside world.]

Show me a person who says that I do not need any government assistance, and I will show you a person who is in denial about reality.