Report on the Poor in America

[el_profe]

The heritage foundation made a report on the poor in America estimated at 35 million(those under the poverty line). Anyway here is some fact from the report.


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

-Forty-six 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.
-
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, 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; 30 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.

-Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

edit: Forgot to add this

Reducing Child Poverty
The generally high living standards of poor Americans are good news. Even better is the fact that our nation can readily reduce remaining poverty, especially among children. To accomplish this, we must focus on the main causes of child poverty: low levels of parental work and high levels of single parenthood.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 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 through the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

The decline in marriage is the second major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. Increasing marriage would substantially reduce child poverty: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.




So I guess there is not 35 million peole dying of starvation in America. And what the goverment defines as poor is probably middle class in most other countries, even wester european countries.

Any opinions on this?

[antieverything]

Of course those are true...the designation of poor, however, is pretty much irrelevant. By those measures, I've been safely within the poor category my entire life. Remember, that number includes well over 10% of the population. Also, the study is misleading as it is a sly attempt to deny the existance of poverty in America. Besides, the existance of great wealth in America is irrelevant to the overwhelmingly convincing argument for socialist revolution in the third world and in the first world on their behalf.

[Take the Power back]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:41 PM
Of course those are true...the designation of poor, however, is pretty much irrelevant. By those measures, I've been safely within the poor category my entire life. Remember, that number includes well over 10% of the population. Also, the study is misleading as it is a sly attempt to deny the existance of poverty in America. Besides, the existance of great wealth in America is irrelevant to the overwhelmingly convincing argument for socialist revolution in the third world and in the first world on their behalf.
Took the words right out of my mouth.

[redstar2000]

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, I have decided to give up communism forever and devote myself to spreading American dominion across the world...starting with Europe.

Well...no. :lol:

I have no confidence in Census Bureau figures (I once worked for them...you'd be surprised at the gross errors that are made). I have even less confidence in any possible interpretation that the Heritage Foundation -- a far-right "think" tank -- would make of those figures.

In fact, the only "truth" that I recognize in that entire list of "goodies" is, yes, air conditioning. A window air-conditioner now retails for about $350...and costs about $120 a month to operate. In "hot weather states", people will sacrifice to keep the a/c running (usually May through September).

The HF's real agenda is here...


Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. Increasing marriage would substantially reduce child poverty: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yeah...never mind if the guy's a wife-beating bastard, you should hook up with him "for the sake of the kids".

Better still, no sex before marriage!

Buy a chastity belt. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[timbaly]

el profe where did you get the number 35 million as the amount of people living in poverty in the US? According to the 2000 census I believe it was only 12.5 million and based on a 2001 estimate the CIA website claims it to be 12.7million. Either way it's a huge discrepancy.

[alternative ulster]

Telling America that these are the standereds by which the "poor" live is the same as saying "Don't worry about the poor because they are getting along just fine." Anyone that can't see that this information is extremely misleading needs to walk around a ghetto and see what it means to be "poor".
The government, it seems to me, is not making attempts to lift anybody out poverty as much as they are aimming to localize it and keep the poor from spreading there crime and filth to the suburbs. Poor communities are filled with corporate buisnesses ,not locally owned buisnesses, therefor the money spent in these areas does not stay in the giving community. People who work in fast food don't make burgers as much as they make money for the owners.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 05:57 PM
The If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
How can this be said for certain? Is it based on the fact that two rents would no longer have to be paid since they would be living under a single roof? How would marriage increase anyones earnings to be able to better support a child? Perhaps there might be more stability in some cases, but there would be less in others due to many abusive parents, usually the father. But what does that have to do with the economics of the situation?


So I guess there is not 35 million peole dying of starvation in America.

Well you're right, since the US is one of the richest countries it is natural that it's poverty standards are different from most other countries. The bottom line is that those living in poverty by US standards are considerably worse off than the average American although these people are still better off than many other people living in poverty abroad. It shows the gross inequalities of the distribution of wealth in the US.

[Nyder]

And how exactly are corporations making people poor?

Corporations/businesses/firms/companies have higher levels of wealth (the successful ones) because they actually produce that much wealth. Economics is not a zero-sum game. For every dollar that a wealthy person earns, a poorer person is not worse off by a dollar.

So how exactly will taking away someone's wealth that they have legitimately accumulated make the poor person any better off?

If you subsidise poverty, you create more of it. Rewarding poverty will only embellish it.

And if you highly tax the wealthy, then no one will want to produce wealth as there is no point. This is an excellent way to keep a country poor and has worked marvellously well in the third world.

But then again, leftist (morons) want everyone to produce equal output, despite the fact that not everyone is the same. That's a great way to solve inequality - make everyone equally poor.

[alternative ulster]

[SIZE=14]Corporations/businesses/firms/companies have higher levels of wealth (the successful ones) because they actually produce that much wealth. Economics is not a zero-sum game. For every dollar that a wealthy person earns, a poorer person is not worse off by a dollar.


Nyder, i belive you missed the point. I said it earlier today, but it wasn't regognized by your "one way" cognation. Corporations do not steal, in the traditional sense, from the poor, what they do is keep the "capitol" in they're claws instead of returning the "capitol" to the community, which, by the way, is the only way a poor community can prosper.
"If you are born poor you will die poor"
"If you are born rich youwill die rich"
It has nothing, NOTHING, to do with persnal ideaology, and ALL to do with enforced beleifs. Example: Nirvana,a seattle grunge band, anti-establishment band. Are they populare, OF COURSE, because they are deviant. The people that tell you what you should listen to "ARE MAKING MONEY".
The "New Age" entrepreneur succeeds, because, "they speak to you" and (you consider yourself "leftist") and you buy it. Look at your own ideaology, left of right, you are both wrong because niether can make an arguement.

TEST ME

[alternative ulster]

"Honest question" so answere

[Vinny Rafarino]

As RS already pointed out, the Heritage Foundation is nothing more than far right drivel. Let us examine some portions of this EDITORIAL;



But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description

Wrong. The US government classifies "under the poverty line" as having an income that is LESS that the following table;

2004 HHS Poverty Guidelines

Size of /48 Contiguous /
Family Unit / States and D.C. / Alaska / Hawaii

1 $ 9,310 / $11,630 / $10,700
2 12,490 / 15,610 / 14,360
3 15,670 / 19,590 / 18,020
4 18,850 / 23,570 / 21,680
5 22,030 / 27,550 / 25,340
6 25,210 / 31,530 / 29,000
7 28,390 / 35,510 / 32,660
8 31,570 / 39,490 / 36,320 .

For each additional
person, add 3,180 3,980 3,660


Let us not forget that this editorial addresses those that live within or below these levels of incomes. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that those with incomes that register BELOW these levels will certainly not be able to afford these so called luxuries that have "mysteriously been placed in the homes of poor yanquis"

We must also consider the enormous population of homeless that DO NOT PARTICIPATE in the Cencus. Of course they don't address this issue. Why would they want to?

[antieverything]

Exactly, RAF.

Also, this fails to recognize that American society is incredibly pathalogical in structural-functionalist terms. Many poor people own one or more new cars...but this isn't to say that they can afford them. Americans are headed for a mass crises once the current orgy of debt catches up with them.

I think the stupidest part of that "study" is when it talks about living space for America's poor compared to living space in the largest European cities. What kind of a comparison is that? Property values are much lower in most of the United States as it has a much lower population density, especially in poor areas other than inner cities. Of course people in dense European cities (especially the city proper, which I'm sure this study uses rather than the entire metropolitan area) live in small apartments! There is still no mention that more people in relatively poor Spain own homes than in America!

[Vinny Rafarino]

What I also enjoyed AE is how this article continually attempts to confuse the reader (not hard considering the type of people that read this nonsense) by moving away from the Federal guidelines of what is considered "poverty" to what "the average yanqui" considers to be "poverty"

For example;


For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter


And;



For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2002 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.2

Clearly the writer as attempting to "win over" the reader by putting more influence on what the "people think" rather than what exists in reality. Reagan did this in the eightees perfectly, The economy was in a shambles, inflation and interest rates were pathetically high yet people gave him their vote because his campaign was fileld with "average Joe Yanquis waving American flags" Let's face it, people with incomes exceeding 80,000.00 per year consider anyone with less quid then they to be "poor".

I also enjoyed this tidbit;


The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home


What they are REALLY trying to say is this;

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents spend too much time smoking the cocaine, and their nigger fathers are always out raping our white sisters in an attempt to plant their demon seed in our good christian society."


Here is my ABSOLTE FAVOURITE bit comrade AE;


Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.


Not only do they try to give a sense of "patriotic duty" by tossing out " GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II." (one of America's most significant historical events) but they actually compare the level of nourishment among children to those who HAD JUST WENT THROUGH THE DEPRESSION!.

This is absolutely COMICAL.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Good point RAF :lol:

I don't trust this kind of think tanks, they seem to get "sponsored" by those who see a chance of proving their points to gain votes. Take a look at their site, it's obvious that they are conservative rich idiots that keep moaning about the "liberal press" and other sanata. So, this is what the "research" says:

"Most people have been corrupted by those liberals that control the media, and think that the freedom lovers make people poor. Our biased research shows that in fact capitalism gave people DVDs, TVs, air conditioning, huge houses, but the lazy bums still want to use our well-earned money to drink champagne all day long and burn churches because they are evil liberal-loving nigger bastards. We decided to ignore that fact that our great country (especially on military) is one of those that have been more industrialized and as such our hard-working corporations have brainwashed them with their logos so that they think they are rich and vote comrade Bu$h again, and we have also ignored that such a technological improvement leaves those who are born with nothing in an inferior situation than those hard working conservatives, and we have also ignored that in other places people is really starving, but that's good for the (American) economy because it means cheap labour. Of course we hide all this with our argument that we bring them liberty and democracy, although this means that we contradict our own belief of the hard earned money because we use the taxpayers one to pay such a big imperialist action, because our real intentions is to exploit the local resources this heretic savages have and we then exploit this cheap niggers and then when things start look worse we move to another cheap country. So we keep our perfect order by scaring this poor niggers by telling them that otherwise some totalitarian authoritarian red agitator will starve them or that some anarchical bomb thrower will kill their ugly nigger family."

That was long but that's what all this means.

[Don't Change Your Name]

This is my 600th post!!! Anyway I'm posting it becuase a detail on that research caught my attention:


The principal nutrition-related health problem among the poor, as with the general U.S. population, stems from the overconsumption, not underconsumption, of food. While overweight and obesity are prevalent problems throughout the U.S. population, they are found most frequently among poor adults. Poor adult men are slightly less likely than non-poor men to be overweight (30.4 percent compared to 31.9 percent); but, as Chart 4 shows, poor adult women are significantly more likely to be overweight than are non-poor women (47.3 percent compared to 32 percent).

This is the classical bourgeois argument "why do those lazy poor niggers who protest against our civilized system who don't like to work to make our nation great are so fat???"

This can be explained on many ways. Ever heard the term "junk food"? That's what this kind of uneducated, discriminated and exploited people think will bring them happiness because propaganda tells them that it is soooooooooo cool. However they normally don't eat that food, so they eat crappy other high-carb food. Of course this bourgeois-oriented society asks for every single rich person to be in shape, so those with good economical conditions are the only ones who get access to gyms, sports facilities, etc.
It seems the only ones who get educated about how to eat properly, but most of them still eat all that junk food so they are still overweight.
Surprisingly, this "research" doesn't mention carb intakes, only proteins, vitamins and minerals. Anyway, most of this people is not that overweight as this article tries to prove.

[Osman Ghazi]

What you especially have to watch for in polemics such as this is when they combine stats, for example '64% of Americans have either DVD or VCR' etc. you have to be especially wary when they say 'this guy killed or tortured this many' because obviously, the amounts for each are not known and thus it can be very easily misinterpreted.