"Poverty in America"... mostly rhetoric

I am not sure I understand your point of view; providing for the general welfare includes ameliorating poverty in our republic.

My question is, why not improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

 

Since this is the Political Forum, not the Dictionary Forum, You'll note that I also posted the 'official' Govt "POLITICAL" determination of what is poverty. You might also note that a SFB idiot that will remain nameless quoted my 'official' govt designation of poverty in the USA. But evidently has no comprehension of what he read or quoted. Pitiful, really.

The ONLY way to get people out of "poverty" in the USA is to lower the poverty level down to $5200.00 Immediately "poverty" in the USA would be reduced by many millions. The living conditions of those people would remain exactly the same, but they would not longer be living in "poverty"

Poverty in the USa is not mostly rhetoric, its a sick joke liberals have foisted on the poor.

And the liberal loony that could dream of me conceding hasn't been born and never will be.

 

　
　
Your arbitrary number, their arbitrary number, you're embarrassing yourself Danno.
　
　
I'll stick with the actual definition, and you can continue your politiotic idiotology all you wish, but I prefer reality.
　
　

　
　
The only disagreement we have is the definition and this ridiculous notion that you can compare poverty in this country with countries that do not have the same economic structure. Poverty levels are based on and determined by the society one lives in. It is defined as poor to destitute, lacking in wealth and/or the ability to obtain wealth. Once you come to that realization we can have an adult conversation.

Save your name calling for somebody else, I just find it humorous.

 

Well you can stick to a dictionary definition like a cement head as long as you wish. This ia America. People have a right to be completely stupid if they insist on being so. But we are talking about poverty in America, and poverty in America IS defined by the Federal Government as those people making the incomes noted above. The singular reason to bring up a dictionary definition is to show that "poverty in America" differs greatly from any textbook or dictionary definitions.

So hold on to your closed minded idiocy and show the world that you can not only be completely wrong, but obstinately completely wrong even in light of clear facts proving you completely, and always, wrong. Enjoy never-never land.

 

The fact that you made this statement shows that you don't know the 1st thing about success.

Success in fact is not easy.

Success is hard.

This is one of the reasons that people who made poor choices have no claim to share the fruts of my labor, and mechanisms that force me to share the results of my work with others who chose futility is nothing short of immoral.

 

LOL, the culture of victimhood, class-envy, and the blaming of external factors for your situation, a tragically liberal hallmark.

 

Dan40;

　
　
Well then by all means don't let me stand in your way Danno.
　
　

　
　
No we are not. I am talking about poverty in the USA, you keep comparing it to Ethiopia. And yes Virginia poverty looks much different there, because it is much more severe to the inhabitants. That doesn't mean the poor people here are not poor. I know I'm wasting my time explaining reality to someone who denies it at such a disturbing level.
　
　

　
　
Nope, it's so we can understand basic language appreciation and help illiterates understand that words have meanings, no matter how one political party or the other spins the actual definition.
　
　

　
　
Are you on medication? No wait, are you on the right medication? Is the nurse close by? I'm begining to worry about you Danno.


When I read what you typed above all that comes to mind is that song, "they're coming to take me away, haha, heehee,hoho, they're coming to take me away.... hoho, haha, hee hee..."

 

OK, we'll work with this: "Lacking in wealth or the ability to obtain it.", pretty decent.

First of all, we will now need to define "wealth". For instance, the middle class is doing good, but not considered "wealthy" by most definitions or people, so is the middle class poor too, because per the above definition the middle class would be considered in poverty because they are not wealthy?

So, again, what is "wealth"? Does everyone deserve to have a $1 million net worth? Isn't a roof over you head, sufficient food, and mechanisms of entertainment and leisure enough? Or does everyone deserve a specific amount of money?

However, even the above is moot, because in the United States, anyone able to work with a functioning mind and body is able to obtain weath, another key aspect of the definition you provided.
I am not saying it is easy or guaranteed, but the inherent ability is there.

So again, I maintain that most "poor" Americans are not in poverty.

 

OK thanks, so the 1st definition is the one that refers to economic poverty, and I don't think a reasonable person could say that most "poor" americans even really fit that definition. They have some money, resources, and means of support, as my OP and the US census bureau indicated.

 

There are already official metrics on poverty in our republic. Why not simply use the federal guidelines as a Standard?

 

Its sad to see a dummy showing his stupidity for all to see while he thinks he's being clever. Either you're intentionally trying to sound like a complete buffoon or you are one and actually have missed the entire point of this thread. Either way you're too stupid for me to bother attempting to correct your lameness any longer.

 

Whatever makes your ego stand upright Danno.

 

But don't you understand Buck, in the Mighty United States of America, poverty could not possibly exist. After all, it is America and poverty is a communist concept!

 

We see that you - self defined reasonable people - will engage in any Lie,
U Lie to yourself & to others, in order to maintain your selfserving Delusions


Your OP and the census bureau statistics it uses, has been shown to be "Ancient History",
In no way can they be seen as legitiment & be applied to present circumstances
............................................................... STATISTICS MORE THAN A DECADE OLD

Your continued use of them simply proves, your Fraudulent Ill Intent & what must be now seen
.................... as a particilarily transperantly Stupid & Dishonest brand of Willful IGNORANCE

Fact IS
People in the United States are being Impoverished, 'THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN'
........................................................................................... at Unprecidented Rates,

Only to be Abused by the IGNORANT & ARROGANT, who blame Poverty on Poverties Victims
............................................................. In order to avoid any Social or Spiritual responcibility,



How is it possible NOT to Insult such Dehumanized miscreants ?
People like 'Dan40' who Cowardly place any strong challenge to their Predudice on IGNORE
& who continue their Empty Talking Head Pronoucments & Lies from underneath a Rock


IGNORANT FLS who propagate vile & disgusting Sterotypes
....... in order to Rationalize & maintain their Delusory IGNORANCE

Little realizing the Immoral Filth such Protracted IGNORANCE smears them with

-------------------------

Unemployment Rose in 90 Percent of U.S. Cities in June
http://news.consumerreports.org/money/2011/08/unemployment-rose-in-nearly-all-us-cities-in-june.html


Predudice & Poverty
http://socialpsych.uconn.edu/Lemieux_&_Pratto_2003.pdf


Sudden And Unexpected"
Burst Of Downsizing Causes Layoffs To Explode Nearly 60% In July
http://www.businessinsider.com/challenger-layoffs-report-for-july-2011-8

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/challenger-layoffs-report-for-july-2011-8#ixzz1U75lLPUt


Sharp Fall in Consumer Spending, Manufacturing in US
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/econ-a03.shtml

The Tent City of New Jersey: Desperate Victims
of the Economic Slump Forced to LKive in Makeshift Homes in Forest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-set-forest-community-New-Yorks-doorstep.html
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mmunity-New-Yorks-doorstep.html#ixzz1U76J0boU

US Company Profits Surge, Even as Economy Slows
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/249916/us-company-profits-surge-even-as-economy-slows

Food Stamp Use Surges
By Most In Years As Alabama Foodstamp Recipients Double In May
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/food-...years-alabama-foodstamp-recipients-double-may


Prejudice Against The Poor
http://www.newint.org/features/1982/09/01/prejudice/




.



.

 

Eadora, the "Reasonable Person" standard is well known and is a fundamental tenet of even our justice system. The "reasonable person" standard is used in court trials all the time.

It is not my definition, you should look it up and learn about it, it is an interesting and I think pretty legitimate idea.

 

That is indeed the point, Federal Standards establish a poverty line that does not represent true poverty.

Poverty is a destitute situation where one lacks adequate calories, resources, and sometimes even shelter.

Most under the "poverty line" in the USA have all of the above and often more.

I don't get the idea that just because there is a lot of succesful folks in this nation that means that our "poor" have to be provided a quasi-middle-class living at everyone else's expense, especially when their own choices put them in hteir situation.

 

True or absolute poverty may include metrics that may not be market recognizable in every market based situation; in my opinion, therefore, we cannot use true or absolute poverty as a guideline simply because we lack perfect knowledge of the phenomena of absolute forms of poverty and its relation to monetary units of account in a market based economy. Official poverty guidelines are more realistic in any mixed-market political-economy that has established the institution of money based markets to facilitate exchange.

 

Nope that is a result of extreme poverty and they were most likely living in poverty
before those symptoms became evident.

 

Get rid of the formatting and I will read and respond.

 

Prove they all measure poverty using the same criteria.

 

"Official" government poverty numbers are what is known as job security for government employees.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

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. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average 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.

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 more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...or-Examining-the-Plague-of-Poverty-in-America

 

　
Here's a novel idea, let's look at the actual definition, not the politiotic idiotology one.
　

　
　
So if there is no dispute the middle class doesn't fit the description since they are limited in the wealth they have or can obtain, but they can provide for themselves and because of that interesting feature, could at some time in the future become wealthy.
　
　

　
　
Did I say anybody deserves anything? Let's work on your ability to understand that words mean something and venture forth from there.

You guys are the ones obsessed with distorting simple definitions and placing an arbitrary dollar figure on a definition that never included one. Since you believe owning a video game system eliminates one from being poor, and is a sign of wealth, you must agree with Obama and believe that $250,000.00 must be rich? And remember you can't have it both ways.
　
　

　
　
　
And yet people with those attributes still remain poor?? Let's assume for a moment that the numbers suggested by the government are legitimate. Let's also look at who is in that bracket besides kids working summer jobs. People who are eligible for government subsidies, and some of them have jobs. Many of them are simply in a bad situation and need a helping hand, and they get assistance and are able to move out of it due to that assistance, out of the poverty level. Others are either physically or mentally deficient and cannot work because they do not have the mental capacity or the social skills to obtain a job. They are not even considered unemployed in most case, in fact the government categorizes them as unemployable, which I assume means nobody in their right mind would hire them even to accomplish the most menial tasks.
　
Most of these people are generational decedents of poverty. They know nothing else because they have absolutely zero practical experiences except being poor, with no where to go but down. Most were born into poverty and they will die there since that is all they know. All the wishful thinking in the world on your part, will not change that obvious fact.

　
Poverty means poor, you can deny it or make up any definition that fits your agenda all you want, but that is a reality not a fabrication. Yes the peasants here may not be as destitute as peasants elsewhere, but they are peasants living in poverty according to our social standards none the less.

 

How much cement does one's head have to contain to not understand that poverty in America is mostly rhetoric?,,,,,,,,And political rhetoric at that?

The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four.


The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society. The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.

For statistical purposes (e.g., counting the poor population), the United States Census Bureau uses a set of annual income levels, the poverty thresholds, slightly different than the federal poverty guidelines. As with the poverty guidelines, they represent a federal government estimate of the point below which a household of a given size has cash income insufficient to meet minimal food and other basic needs.

National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys. Definitions of the poverty line may vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations. Thus, the numbers are not comparable among countries.

In 2009, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,161; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,756

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures for poverty in 2011[3] Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,890 $13,600 $12,540
2 $14,710 $18,380 $16,930
3 $18,530 $23,160 $21,320
4 $22,350 $27,940 $25,710
5 $26,170 $32,720 $30,100
6 $29,990 $37,500 $34,490
7 $33,810 $42,280 $38,880
8 $37,630 $47,060 $43,270
Each additional
person adds $3,820 $4,780 $4,390

 

When it comes to POVERTY
......Its causes & its Co$ts

UR Unreasonable - You are in Fact IGNORANT



I actually feel sorry - I can't be Kinder


.

 

pffft,what poverty in America?The Government spends over $1 trillion on welfare,foodstamps,medicare/medicaid,and other safety nets.A family recieving $300 in food stamps,welfare,free medical,a SUV,a 3 bedroom house with heat,AC,and clean running water and sewage isnt exactly "poverty".I dont see kids looking like skeletons with flies on their faces,drinking dirty water from a river here in America.Ask your grandparents about what poverty was like in America during the Depression and Dust Bowl and Im pretty sure they will tell you they had no internet ,xboxs,or any of that stuff.