1 in 6 Americans in poverty?

[Satya]

Haha so well put Billy, I agree with everything you said! America surely is one of a kind xD

Charity is defined as: Man's love of his fellow-men. Benevolence to others less fortunate than ourselves.

While taxation is supposed to take care of the same thing as charity - It lacks all meaningful bits and rips people of the empathy... Perhaps this is why people are exceptionally bitter, insensitive and careless over here because its supposed to be the states job. Therefore, there are no charities nor feelings of compassion and willingness to help over here..

I would say Billy's mentality is proof of why we need taxation. People who view the impoverish as lazy and inept. They have no interest in helping those who genuinely need help. They just tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get to work. It doesn't matter if they are working their asses off and just getting by. It doesn't matter if their children are going to bed hungry or can't get basic medical care. Where is this benevolence when someone views the impoverished in this country as people with big screen TVs and gaming consoles? Where is the empathy when the answer is work harder when those people are already working as hard as they can?

 

[Pristinegirl]

I would say you are rather prejudiced to the poor if this is how you view them. I guarantee you a single mother just getting by on food stamps does not have a 50 inch flat screen LCD TV or XBox 360. In essence, your view is rather distorted.

And FYI, I did not use the term "poor" when I began this thread, I used the term "impoverished". Apparently you don't know the difference.

I'm happy you have such thick boot straps.

A single mother just getting by on foodstamps is a struggling and poor mother anywhere. There are LOADS of them here too... and we are supposed to basically hand out 'social welfare' to those who ask but now thats the case...

HAHa Satya go look in the dictionary They are actually synonyms!
And for your information Impoverished means "poor enough to need help from others"...

 

[Julia]

Credit cards play a role today. People go into debt paying for food sometimes. These were not typically an option until the 1990's when there were a lot of credit card offers given out.

 

[Satya]

Why is that ironic?? I think it is amazing and admirable and even if they are subsidized, which is not even near all of them, then so be it. It is MUCH better in my opinion because people still genuinely WANT to help, rather than having state-sucking-leeches on your income to do the same job... which they so often fail to do!

So....let me get this straight...you have no problem with communities and organizations being subsidized by the government to help others...but you do have a problem people being taxed to provide the subsidization that keeps those groups in business? And what is s "state sucking leech? Do you even know what social welfare in this country is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

TANF sets forward the following work requirements necessary for benefits:

1. Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
2. Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances.
3. Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
4. States, in FY 2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families are participating in work activities. If a state reduces its caseload, without restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve.

So anyone who meets those requirements falls under the category of "state sucking leech"?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Quite honestly, all this America-is-crappy stuff is beginning to irk me. No, it's not the greatest. But that also depends on what you're basing it on. The United States is not a pile of crap either.

Yes, it's different when you're in poverty. It's different when you're rich. It's different being a student in poverty versus someone with a family.

But poor people are present in every country. And if you want to equal it out, you have to sacrifice some things. The one thing Americans don't want to do is do things for themselves; we need to stop harping at the government and DO things as individuals. The government has a lot on its hands as is, and the people just aren't taking enough initiative for themselves.

We know America has a lot of faults. But I am so tired of hearing about those faults when I haven't seen enough change in the actual people. Social changes start with the people; poverty is just as much a social issue as it is a federal one.

 

[Julia]

Yeah except poor in the USA isn't like poor elsewhere, one of the only countries in history where the poorer you get the fatter you get.

Not all poor people are fat, but many are because cheap food consists primarily of fat and sugar and no nutrition. I'm guessing you do know this.

And I dont know too many poor people outside of the USA with 50 inch flat screen LCD tvs and Xbox 360s and a car. Poor is a very over used and inappropriate word for making policy. Its all emotion.

You know "poor" people with shit like that in the U.S? If that is how you define poor, then yes, that is entirely emotion.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I would say Billy's mentality is proof of why we need taxation. People who view the impoverish as lazy and inept. They have no interest in helping those who genuinely need help. They just tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get to work. It doesn't matter if they are working their asses off and just getting by. It doesn't matter if their children are going to bed hungry or can't get basic medical care. Where is this benevolence when someone views the impoverished in this country as people with big screen TVs and gaming consoles? Where is the empathy when the answer is work harder when those people are already working as hard as they can?

Perhaps because the mentality is 'Help youtself up.. after rain comes sunshine.. if you get up, you'll feel better and get there faster!!!!' In order to recieve help you need to earn it. I hear those stories of neverending struggling poor families who consistently and still put others needs before their own...

He was not talking about benevolence, I just defined it for him?

I cannot speak for Billy but the way I took it was that, similar to me, we are against freely handing out social welfare to those 'poor' lying on their sofa all day playing video games... In other words those who endlessly complain about their situation yet does not do anything to change it. Let me give an example, in north of Sweden theres an extremely low population, its like a country side... and so young adults are freely given SOCIAL WELFARE because they say "there are no jobs for us". Well OBVIOUSLY as hell there are no jobs up there !?!?!?!

And that is the risk of social welfare, takes away the motivation to really get somewhere and CHANGE and HOPE, TO FIGHT FOR STRENGTH AND HONOR

 

[Satya]

A single mother just getting by on foodstamps is a struggling and poor mother anywhere. There are LOADS of them here too... and we are supposed to basically hand out 'social welfare' to those who ask but now thats the case..

I really find it funny that you think you can compare your situation in Sweden to the situation here in America. Over and over again you do so on an ideological basis, and over an over again, you prove that you know nothing about how things work here and what is considered "socialism" over here. You make the argument that "social welfare" is necessary, then you laugh at the misfortune of those who are just getting by and refer to them as "state sucking leeches". Way to go.

HAHa Satya go look in the dictionary They are actually synonyms!
And for your information Impoverished means "poor enough to need help from others"...

Exactly. Those who are poor enough to need help. That is the difference. Not all poor people need help, but all impoverished people do.

 

[Julia]

I cannot speak for Billy but the way I took it was that, similar to me, we are against freely handing out social welfare to those 'poor' lying on their sofa all day playing video games... In other words those who endlessly complain about their situation yet does not do anything to change it.

This is an understandable position. The question lies in how accurately it depicts those in need of help. Maybe people are laying on the couch playing expensive video games and expecting money and they go without food because of this. I would need to see some kind of proof that this is the nature of the problem of poverty. That's probably happens, and in most cases parents end up financially supporting them, but that has nothing to do with actual poverty from a larger social standpoint. Correcting that problem will not solve the problem of poverty. It is a tangential issue.

There can be issues of lack of motivation in extreme poverty, but it isn't always because the person is lazy, and it is rarely because they are playing with expensive toys. It can happen because they are nutritionally deprived, lacking medical attention, and ending up in depression because of physical and psychological deprivation. If you live in a ghetto and every person you know is in poverty, then there are some who work double and triple shifts at minimum wage jobs, others who lay around waiting for welfare checks, others who get involved with drugs or prostitution. In each case, the problem of poverty is not satisfactorily solved. That is damned depressing. When entire populations exhibit certain problems, then it is not an individual issue. It is a sociological issue, and one can certainly blame the individuals, but the problem will not be solved in that manner. There are factors powerful enough to produce the same outcome in an entire strata of society. These external factors must be diagnosed and addressed in order for progress to occur. Individual blame is meaningless in such a discussion.

It is the middle class that pulls up the boot straps and can tell their stories of victory. In true poverty, you pull yourself up by the bootstraps and barely survive, and then you die. There isn't the kind of hope available that the middle class often enjoys.

 

[Pristinegirl]

So....let me get this straight...you have no problem with communities and organizations being subsidized by the government to help others...but you do have a problem people being taxed to provide the subsidization that keeps those groups in business? And what is s "state sucking leech? Do you even know what social welfare in this country is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families



So anyone who meets those requirements falls under the category of "state sucking leech"?

A state sucking leech means, state heavily taxing you 60% or more (like here).

I'm wondering, if they are a non-profit organisation, then are they taxed on the money they are raised or?

Because non-profit NGOs don't!

I just learned a new term, I did not know you had 'federal assistance' programs. You still have social welfare though, so how are they exactly different from one another? That temporary assistance for Needy Families sounds very good. It sounds motivation but firm! It gives the family a chance, a road back into society.

Although:

Note: 1996 was the last year for the AFDC program

How come they took it away?

 

[Pristinegirl]

I really find it funny that you think you can compare your situation in Sweden to the situation here in America. Over and over again you do so on an ideological basis, and over an over again, you prove that you know nothing about how things work here and what is considered "socialism" over here. You make the argument that "social welfare" is necessary, then you laugh at the misfortune of those who are just getting by and refer to them as "state sucking leeches". Way to go.

Exactly. Those who are poor enough to need help. That is the difference. Not all poor people need help, but all impoverished people do.

Oh Wow... :/:/:/:/

You are so wrong about me. I don't laugh at misfortune at all!!! AND I am not referring to POOR PEOPLE as leeches *#

 

[Satya]

A state sucking leech means, state heavily taxing you 60% or more (like here).

What does that have to do with the 1 in 6 people living in poverty here? What does that have to do with the social welfare we provide here?

I'm wondering, if they are a non-profit organisation, then are they taxed on the money they are raised or?

Non profits are not taxed.

I just learned a new term, I did not know you had 'federal assistance' programs. You still have social welfare though, so how are they exactly different from one another? That temporary assistance for Needy Families sounds very good. It sounds motivation but firm! It gives the family a chance, a road back into society.

TANF put lifetime limits of 5 years on welfare and forced families into workfare (jobs that don't pay a liveable wage).The result is this country has a fairly unique phenomenon called "the working poor". That means people in this country who work over 40 hours a week but can't afford basic necessities like health care.

How come they took it away?

A Conservative movement that started by in the 60s to end generational poverty.

 

[Satya]

Poorness: shortage of common things such as food, clothing, shelter and safe drinking water, all of which determine the quality of life. - All of that which makes someone impoverished..

All impoverished people are poor, but not all poor people are impoverished. The difference is the need for help. Not all poor people need help, but all impoverished people need help.

Don't worry I'll stay away..

It couldn't hurt.

 

[The Jester]

Why is that ironic?? I think it is amazing and admirable and even if they are subsidized, which is not even near all of them, then so be it. It is MUCH better in my opinion because people still genuinely WANT to help, rather than having state-sucking-leeches on your income to do the same job... which they so often fail to do!

I think the programs by the state are there because the state wants to help, not because they want to 'leech' money.

And to all of you who are justifying the poverty:
1) have you ever been poor?
2) are you still living in your mother's basement?

I hate it when people try to justify it.
If it let's you sleep at night, okay then, I understand that.
But unless you haven't been poor, you shouldn't be justifying it, because it's easy to do from the perspective of an average-wealthy-home.

I like my government who takes care of its people.
Because I don't feel the need to live in a rich beverly hills-style home while
there are people starving.

I really enjoy my freedom, but if I have to give a bit of it up so others can enjoy theirs too, sure.
I can't see why anyone wouldn't do the same.

 

[Shai Gar]

What I hate is the intimation that Australia is such a crap hole that poor people here cannot work themselves to wealth.

Who owns Fox?

 

[Julia]

There is a problem when poverty is dismissed based on middle class experience of having lazy friends or family members who start to sink below middle class. This is not the central issue of poverty. These people have access to family with resources. The poor do not. Such people had a wider range of choices than the actual poor. The tactics used to correct their lack of contribution are not necessarily effective on those who are actually deprived.

The reason to provide assistance to those impoverished is to give them a pair of "boots with straps", so that they have options not presented beforehand. If nothing is done to help the poor, they will remain in poverty. Whether it is declared as their "fault" or not, the problem will remain as a result of external factors. I don't think anyone thinks it is a good idea to provide just enough support to enable poverty. Providing food and medical care is an important short-term solution, but increasing access to education is key. There could be initial resistance because those in poverty don't necessarily grow up with parents who push them to be doctors, or who brag about their accomplishments to friends. Self-concept results from an environment in which there is much depression, hopelessness, and pain. People need hope in order to function or make progress. This is not an ethereal idea of hope someone can be talked into, but tangible, real hope they can hold in their hands and know it will empower them to survive.

 

[Pristinegirl]

All impoverished people are poor, but not all poor people are impoverished. The difference is the need for help. Not all poor people need help, but all impoverished people need help.

It couldn't hurt.

HA So you don't think that someone defined as poor needs help?!? when someone who is impoversished is in fact poor...

What does that have to do with the 1 in 6 people living in poverty here? What does that have to do with the social welfare we provide here?

If Shai can talk about Australia, I can talk about Sweden

Non profits are not taxed.

Thats not what I asked, I was asked HOW?

TANF put lifetime limits of 5 years on welfare and forced families into workfare (jobs that don't pay a liveable wage).The result is this country has a fairly unique phenomenon called "the working poor". That means people in this country who work over 40 hours a week but can't afford basic necessities like health care.

A Conservative movement that started by in the 60s to end generational poverty.

The article said a limit of 2 years. And it is strange because according to the statistics; as the federal assistance rose, the poverty rate went up and unemployment too...

I think the programs by the state are there because the state wants to help, not because they want to 'leech' money.

And to all of you who are justifying the poverty:
1) have you ever been poor?
2) are you still living in your mother's basement?

I hate it when people try to justify it.
If it let's you sleep at night, okay then, I understand that.
But unless you haven't been poor, you shouldn't be justifying it, because it's easy to do from the perspective of an average-wealthy-home.

I like my government who takes care of its people.
Because I don't feel the need to live in a rich beverly hills-style home while
there are people starving.

I really enjoy my freedom, but if I have to give a bit of it up so others can enjoy theirs too, sure.
I can't see why anyone wouldn't do the same.

Awe thats cute, very idealistic =)

 

[testing]

What I hate is the intimation that Australia is such a crap hole that poor people here cannot work themselves to wealth.

Who owns Fox?

For what it's worth, I don't think that. That is just one person posting. One of the richest men I know is from Australia, he bought my parents a ticket to Paris for thier 50th wedding anniversary. He's really generous but kind of bossy. And reminds you that "Mathematical" minds like his have a special way of thinking...

But yeah, not shithole or any of that.

(sorry, I believe you said Crap hole.)

 

[The Jester]

Awe thats cute, very idealistic =)

...

Seriously, what?

 

[Julia]

What I hate is the intimation that Australia is such a crap hole that poor people here cannot work themselves to wealth.

Who owns Fox?

Fox news? l'm not sure, but it is almost entirely sensation and exaggeration. Most of the 24 hour news networks here have turned to sensation over reporting. How else will they keep viewers? Unfortunately they really upset a lot of people.