PDA

View Full Version : The US Has The Richest "Poor" In The World



red states rule
02-06-2007, 08:29 AM
The left is constantly telling everyone how the poor in America suffer and how the "rich" get rich of the backs of the poor

Well, the being "poor" in America is not so bad


January 5, 2004
Executive Summary: Understanding Poverty in America
by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Executive Summary #1713

If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. 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 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; 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.
Overall, 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.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation's poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. In contrast to the 25 percent of "poor" households that have cell phones and telephone answering machines, ap-proximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--the equivalent of 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 official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another 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. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation's remaining poverty would quickly be reduced. This is, perhaps, the best news about poverty in the United States.

Robert E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Fellow in Statistical Welfare Research in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm

theHawk
02-07-2007, 09:13 AM
In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--the equivalent of 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 official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another 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. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

The key here is that the solution is the family unit. Liberals tout that they want to have all these government programs in order to "combat poverty", yet they turn around and attack the family unit at every chance they can get. Kids need parents that will take care of them in order to get out of poverty, not government hand-outs.

Roopull
02-07-2007, 09:28 AM
I rarely watch the boob tube, but a couple of weeks ago, I was scrolling along & saw what looked like an interesting SUV thing tumbling along a dirt road. Being a "carguy," I decided to see what it was about.

Some rapper/producer guy that looked familiar was taking a tour in Zimbabwe & South Africa to see what his donated money had bought.

They showed him, among other things, water pumps that are powered by a merry-go-round... yup... powered by kids! Woohoo!


Anyway, the rapper guy was shown the horrible living conditions these people are raised in... sewage rolling down the middle of the street... little girls carrying dirty drinking water back to their little shacks. You know, the typical save-the-children footage.

At the end of the show, which was surprisingly good, Mr. Rapper guy said something along the lines of, "we say we're from the hood. We say we're from the ghetto. We ain't from no ghetto."

Ado
02-07-2007, 09:07 PM
Funny how everytime we want things improved here, righties start
using the worldview for comparison, but any other time, the
worldview doesn't really matter.

It's like fat people comparing themselves to obese people
and saying, "See, no problem here. I'll have the fettucini alfredo."

Using the worldview to compare places that never were developed
in an excuse not to do anything about the problems here.

Doesn't work for me.

Gadget (fmr Marine)
02-07-2007, 09:18 PM
Play Pump (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/10/south_africa_th.html) is a fantastic product and idea. I saw the same documentary, and it was amazing that they can put one of these pumps in the ground in a day, and have enough clean water available to the entire village.

Clean water to villages in Africa and most of the developing world is a huge concern to help get others out of deplorable situations. I think I remember the cost of one of these pumps is a remarkabley low $8,000 or so.....

At any rate, it was fascinating to watch how the children gravitated toward it, and started pumping water to the holding tank without anyone telling them what to do.

With regard to our own poor in the US, we still have the greatest opportunities available to anyone willing to work hard and make sacrifices to earn a living or get an education. It always amazes me how successful legal immigrants do in this country, because THEY know how good it is here.

red states rule
02-08-2007, 07:17 AM
Funny how everytime we want things improved here, righties start
using the worldview for comparison, but any other time, the
worldview doesn't really matter.

It's like fat people comparing themselves to obese people
and saying, "See, no problem here. I'll have the fettucini alfredo."

Using the worldview to compare places that never were developed
in an excuse not to do anything about the problems here.

Doesn't work for me.

The point is (that libs ignore) we do have the richest poor in the world. The "poor" in this country have a very good life and all the libs want is more money for a crisis that does not exist

Libs have spent over $9 Trillion on social programs in the last 40 years

I want to know what the libs exit strategy is on the war on poverty

Hugh Lincoln
02-11-2007, 02:59 PM
Good post, rsr.

It's America-haters who hyperventilate about "so many poor in America" because they want to paint its people as awful, greedy wretches who need to be taxed to the hilt. It's so much bullshit. We're all supposed to feel guilty, which in turn makes liberals feel good.