.
.
.
Coining phrases and controlling the use of language has been a cornerstone of liberal success for the past few decades. Nowhere is that brilliant turn of inaccurate phrase more evident than in the “battle to end poverty.” Each year for decades, the United States Census Bureau has reported that between 30 to 47 million Americans live in “poverty.” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html President Obama has stated that
“I absolutely will make that commitment…Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal. And we’re going to have to mobilize our society not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into poverty…” http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/obama_overview.aspx
If you ask the average American to define poverty, the overwhelming majority of responses will focus on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. http://www.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDF I agree with that definition and would hope our country would strive to eliminate this scourge.
So, do we have 30 to 47 million people in America unable to meet their basic needs? Not even close. Rather than relying on this rather common sense definition of poverty, the U.S. Census Bureau uses an income based measure. The result? The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago. James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families(New York: HarperCollins, 2002), p. 1. The typical household defined as poor by the government has a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there are children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. http://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypy-jxs2 In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty#_ftn4
The home of the typical poor family is not overcrowded and is in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American has more living space than the average European- that is NOT the average POOR European, that is the AVERAGE European. The typical poor American family is also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family is not hungry and has sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs. Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty#_ftn4
Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty#_ftn4
Obviously this does not mean that there isn’t hunger and real need for help for some families. About .5% of families have ongoing problems getting enough food to eat – that is a problem we need to work to solve. There is obviously homelessness in a small percentage of the population – another problem that we need to work to solve. However, this intentional gross overstatement about the extent of the problem deflects away from rather than helps arguments about the need for government programs.
Come on, let’s try to do more local stories, Juice-Brother. Maybe poverty in the OC. Does it also not exist here?
President Obama is the first President since 1948 to not even utter the word “poverty” in his State of the Union Address. Hardly abuse.
Anyway, Vern’s right. Like I always say…keep it local loco! I don’t even need bylines on the front page to tell which stories are yours!
This is the kind of crap, rich, fat, white guys tell each other so they don’t have to feel guilty for NOT doing anything about poverty.
Really, which part is untrue?
“This is the kind of crap, rich, fat, white guys tell each other so they don’t have to feel guilty for NOT doing anything about poverty.”…….. Hmmmm
Like Michael Moore? and local Sin Mill?
Of much, much greater concern to me is trend…you can pick a particular standard and come to some pretty obvious conclusions over the long term regarding trend. See that uptick at the end of this chart? Is that something you think we should ignore? Particularly disconcerting is the trend among children.
Interestingly, compare the trend between 1992-2000 with 2000-2011.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/US_poverty_rate_by_age._Timeline.gif
Notice that in 50s old folks did a OK because they relied on savings an accrued assets.
Now under the Obama/Brown care and SSI they are among the poorest.
Also notice misery index in 70s under Carter/Brown and rebounding prosperity under Reagan.
Can’t you read a chart? Poverty among seniors is at historic lows! And notice the dramatic dip after enactment of Medicare!
Good point!
Sloppy me, I got mislead by the title Poverty = Lower on chart and my empiric.
However, being here during the most of the time the chart is obviously socialistic propaganda.
Uhm, this entirely misses the point that the used definition of poverty mostly folks that would be considered wealthy in most of the rest of the world.
Uhm, okay. So then is your point the following? It’s about time for America to lower its standard of living to that of – what, Russia, China, Africa?
No, that we should redefine poverty to match actual poverty. There is a complete disconnect between what almost all Americans describe as poverty and what the government defines as poverty.