Poverty???? An Eye-Opener

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by Marlin, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    I thought this was significant. Makes one ask why we have a welfare state in this great Republic.....


    Myth: Severe poverty requires government action

    Liberal myth

    Because so many Americans are mired in poverty, we need more expansive government programs to relieve their plight.

    The facts

    Material hardship clearly exists in the United States, but it is quite restricted in scope and severity.
    • 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.
    • Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
    • Forty-three percent of all poor households actually 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 a porch or patio.
    • Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    • Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. Two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
    • The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (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; 31 percent own two or more cars.
    • 92.5 percent of the poor report their families have “enough food to eat,” while less than 2 percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.
    The welfare state is not the answer to poverty

    Government programs have not worked to reduce poverty in America. Since President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in the 1960s, the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars—and did little to reduce poverty.

    Real solutions:

    Work and marriage

    Work and marriage are sure ways to reduce poverty, especially among children. Government welfare programs, however, perversely remain hostile to both by rewarding idleness and penalizing marriage.
    • In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year. This is less than half a full-time job, and about 16 hours of work per week.
    • If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year—nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty.
    • Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes.
    • Each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock.
    • If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
    Reduce illegal immigration

    Stemming the tide of illegal immigration must be a part of any strategy to reduce poverty.
    • Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad.
    • One-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants.
    • Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal.
    Related Heritage researchPrinted from: http://www.myheritage.org/Issues/MythBusters/Poverty.asp
  2. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    Thanks for the story Marlin

  3. travihanson

    travihanson Member

    May 24, 2007
    Milo, ME
  4. AngelDeville

    AngelDeville Member

    Aug 28, 2007
    It says nothing about the "Man" keeping everyone down?

    WTF, I have been lied to....
  5. hankroberts

    hankroberts New Member

    Nov 6, 2007
    Good article, and good points.

    However, as usual the most fundamental argument against government intervention to "eliminate poverty" has been missed. When this topic comes up I always go to this argument, and the discussion stalls immediately because the liberals simply have no defense for their position. That is because their position is built on a logical and mathematic impossibility.

    How is 'poverty' defined, that is, what exactly constitutes a 'poverty-level income'? (The point here is, what is it the liberal wants to eliminate by government intervention) 'Poverty' income is almost universally defined as the lowest bracket in the income level for a society. I think currently in the US the lowest 1/5th (or 20%) of income is -by definition- poor.

    So, here's the problem. If you define 'poor' as the lowest 20% of ANY income group, how exactly do you eliminate that??? If you increase the average income in the US to 20 MILLION dollars/household, there is still 20% of income earners at the bottom of the ladder. And of course, in any free interprise system, prices will increase as average earnings increase.

    So minimum wages and other government interventions have NO possibility of doing what liberals say they are intended to do. None. Zero. All they accomplish is to inflate the monetary system.

    I always go to this point first when discussing the issue with liberals. I tell them to offer me a government program that will resolve this problem, and I'll support it. End of discussion.
  6. idocdave

    idocdave New Member

    Dec 16, 2006
    How many have cell phones
  7. OMG!!! I'm going to have to really watch how I want to respond here...

    Oh, what the hell, have I ever????

    Give me a bloody break!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

    I mean, did you guys even REALLY read this bs????

    (1) Has anybody even REMOTELY thought that at least SOME of that crap on the list was GIVEN to the person???? In my state we have what's called "Free Cycle". It's a listserv encouraging people to give away whatever junk they don't want instead of taking it to the dump. And yes...that most CERTAINLY includes MICROWAVES, TVs, VCRs, etc., etc.

    (2) I don't have a garage, deck, porch, patio, dishwasher (unless you mean me or my son), own a home (I rent--and it's NOT 3 bedrooms), sunroom, housekeeper, shouffer, or any other idiotic bs that's mentioned in that article. Further, it makes me have to wonder exactly HOW desolate does someone have to be in order for others to deem that person in need???? Think about YOUR OWN sons, daughters, grandkids, etc.

    (3) Yeah, I own a vehicle. And let me tell you something STRAIGHT UP...I DESERVED EVERY PENNY that was put into that vehicle because my ex had to BUY me that vehicle (IN TOTAL, BRAND NEW) because of all the idiotic BS he put me through in our divorce. Further, if it weren't for that, I would have lost that vehicle a LONG time ago.

    (4) AIR CONDITIONING?!?!?!?! Are you bloody serious?!?!?!?!?! OMG!!!! I'm not even addressing this it's so ridiculous.

    (5) What are you calling has "more than two rooms per person"???? Like a freaking closet and bedroom?? or *GASP!* a BATHROOM AND A BEDROOM??? OMG!! The NERVE of some POOR people!

    (6) "If poor mothers married the fathers of their children..." LMAO!!!! Are you kidding me?!??!?!?! This is so wrong and ignorant on SO MANY different levels. That gives the distinct implication that (A) women should marry for money; (B) the father HAS a job; (C) the father is even worth marrying; (D) that if they married, everything would be 'happliy ever after'...I could just go on and on here. Despite unfortunate and obvious popular belief, not ALL women have the goal in life to get married, squirt out a bunch of kids, and stay home to watch Dr. Phil!!! But, I will tell you in my case--aside from the fact that I am NOT looking for some SUGAR DADDY to take care of me and my kid--this ignorant article also distinctly implies that the father is NOT a homosexual (closet or otherwise) or transvestight or what-the-hell-ever you want to call a guy who likes to wear women's underwear, dance around, slapping his own ass while watching himself in the mirror when he thinks nobody is around. And if THAT blows wind up YOUR skirt, then bloody hell GO FOR IT! I guess I'm a little bit more of a traditionalist than that!
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  8. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Central NJ
    Liberal dem politicians don't give a rats butt about the poor or poverty. What they do care about is power and control. He who provides has the power and control. The vast majority of the folks who vote dem in urban areas are recipients and benefit from dem give aways. Those who actually have jobs that vote dem are merely looking for an easy way to be generous. After all its easy to be a liberal dem all you do is spend someone elses money to help the poor. You get to feel wonderful about how great you are without giving up any extra of what you have. It truly is a great scam they have come up with.
    The hand out crowd votes for them and the hand wringing crowd does too.
  9. WTF?!?!?! Do you even have a CLUE what you're talking about??????? You need to go visit the "Pet Peeves" thread...then again maybe not...it might be too indicative...
  10. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Central NJ
    Hit a nerve did I? Liberals are not a peeve they are danger to our way of life. This country was not built on socialism or hand outs. It was built by the hard work of individuals who were grateful for a place that their work let them prosper. Now the liberal pukes of this world want to redistribute that wealth thru confiscatory taxation for social entitlement programs.
    News flash there are just as many so called poor as there were when Johnson screwed us with his "Great Society". We have spent trillions on the war on poverty yet the percent of those labeled as poor is the same. The only thing different is that our current poor are fatter and have more luxuries.
    Read my signature because it applies.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  11. Yeah, ignorance tends to hit a nerve with me.

    Wow...interesting rhetoric you have there, satellite. Did we change Administrations since I last posted?? Gee..."news flash"...I think not.

    Clearly, it's easy for some people (some more than others) to pass judgment on others when they have no clue what it's like. I pray to God you and/or your family will never know what it's like. But you know what? Karma has a funny little way of coming around and biting us on the ass.
  12. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Central NJ
    Karma who are you Earle? :D
  13. I see where you are coming from, Firebird. But I kind of agree w/ Mike ( SAT 66 ).

    I was in the Safeway recently. Family ahead of me in line. The guy has a new fancy smancy cell phone he is talking on to try to impress me. His wife whips out the FOOD STAMPS:mad: Then the clerk says to her "these aren't valid till next week. So they leave ( while the guy is talking a blue streak of complaining Non-English ). We have Section 8 ( govt subsidized ) housing residences w/ MBZ in the garage. Today, some women tries to hit me up for change outside a restaurant- I don't do panhandling. 5 minutes later I see her on her butt smoking a cigarette. Maybe she begged that too, I don't know.

    But I understand Nancy Pelosi & Hillary want to tax the crap out of "the rich", "So the poor & illegal immigrants can live the American Dream they deserve" Sorry, I can't buy that.

    The Govt has coddled the "poor" so long, the Govt hasn't a clue what's poor, anylonger. They have been wasting money w/ no control for Generations. Of course the same can probably be said for any program the Govt spends money on.

    We have a "poor" nephew. We have held his hand for months. He will take a handout, not advice. So he is poor & stupid. We finally had to say the buck stopped last week. He can still find $ to smoke & party, but not on our dime anymore.

    We donate regularly to Thift Stores, Salvation Army, the Food Bank, & pay too much in taxes. If I felt the tax $ was spent in a good way, I would feel better. IMHO, there are too many people living off the "system". Don't know what the hard answer is to that problem. If you were my neighbor, a decent person, sober & hardworking, & had a problem, I'd be a good neighbor to you.
  14. Bruce--I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I posted on this very subject not too terribly long ago and the frustrations I have with it. HOWEVER, that wasn't necessarily the problem I had with satellite (which should be pretty damn obvious). Part of it is devil's advocate, part is my own personal experience (on BOTH sides). The point here is it's easy to pass judgment when you haven't been through it.
  15. williamd

    williamd New Member

    Mar 21, 2007
    Most of pics I see of the poverty folks sure don't lead me to think they can't afford groceries!!! Recent pic in local paper of 'poor' leaving grocery line after local fires was of a Mom, son and daughter carrying arms full of bread, hot dog buns, chips, ... health food! Between the three they were probably 200# over weight!

    If someone needs it I will drop some $$ in the pot but not when I see pics like that. And, it was not unusual!
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Immigration and poverty explained....with gumballs Oct 25, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Interesting article on poverty and Democrats... And from CNN!?!?!? Aug 21, 2008