Definition of Poverty

[Karis]

The government now also provides FREE cell phones and people CAN use food stamps at certain restaurants in the D.C. metro area.

 

Something about "pride/ self esteem not wanting people to feel ashamed... they should be able to splurge and have luxuries."

 

(really...?)

 

The food subsidy is to buy food - not go out and have an expensive dinner on my dime.

 

"poor" people working the system get plenty of help. Let's be honest.

 

 

The average "Broke" middle class family is struggling.

[NicAnn]

I'm struggling with this thread and what to say, because of some choices my Dh and I have made, both for better or worse.

 

We are poor, and considered at or below the poverty line. However you would not ever know it by looking at our life. Dh is exceptional with money and researching products to buy, and as a result we have nice-ish cars (though one is a 20 year old Toyota), "fancy" phones (which my husband did some work trade to get), and very nice electronics, like television and computers.

 

We are not people who have debt, spend frivolously, or buy anything unnecessary. However, we have received state assistance in the past, and I'm quite sure many would judge us for that based on the way our life looks. I believe that assistance programs are made for people like my family, and never will I feel guilty for having to take it. My husband is the definition of a hard working family man. I think many of the views on assistance programs are correct, there are certainly ppl who abuse the system....but there are many more who use them to keep afloat and who make good decisions.

[NicAnn]

The government now also provides FREE cell phones and people CAN use food stamps at certain restaurants in the D.C. metro area.

 

Something about "pride/ self esteem not wanting people to feel ashamed... they should be able to splurge and have luxuries."

 

(really...?)

 

The food subsidy is to buy food - not go out and have an expensive dinner on my dime.

 

"poor" people working the system get plenty of help. Let's be honest.

 

 

The average "Broke" middle class family is struggling.

 

 

The thing about this though, having been on food stamps myself, is that the money is not enough to go have an "expensive dinner on your dime". We received the assistance when my husband lost his job and we had less than $200 in the bank/assets. We received around $250 for food from the program. This was barely enough to feed my family...it only was because I cooked everything from scratch and we ate a lot of homemade soups. There was certainly NOT enough to go out. So while this may be an option, I really doubt many people are using it.

 

Having said that, I can understand why it is there. I have had to tell my crying daughter many many times, that "no we can't get an ice cream cone or go to the pizza place" with her friends. That is a soul breaking thing to have to do...to be too poor to afford a slice of pizza. Not everyone on these programs are working the system, and if they want to talk their families to have a special treat out, they should be allowed.

 

I'll leave this thread now, as I can tell it will be too emotional for me.

[Karis]

The issue is whether someone is abusive of the help they receive.

 

No one begrudges anyone needing help. (We've had help and will do so again if needed. But we are also responsible. Some people are just trifling and it irks me that no one wants to admit it.)

 

Many are responsible but many also are not.

 

Saying someone can't speak to the truth of the misuse of resources because they receive(d) help is ridiculous.

[Karis]

You do need to take a breather. I can tell this is an emotional issue for you. But it was not a personal attack and it seems as you have taken it that way.

 

We have very little extras these days. If we have $$ for so called "luxuries' it goes to "necessities."

 

but really people have their own thoughts on what is needed. If my child cries over ice cream I remind them that there is some child who's never tasted an ice cream cone so stop the whining. We will save up and plan for a day when we have it so you can have ice cream.

 

If I get food assistance, then we'll buy ice cream but the emotional breakdown over a cone is so sad.

[amey311]

And also, as poor as she is she most definitely qualifies for food stamps and WIC----free formula. She would still be poor, but her child would not go hungry.

 

FWIW, very often WIC does not cover ENOUGH formula. I'm sure some would argue that it's not the government's job to provide ALL of your baby's food, but whatever. I have heard from multiple sources that families end up thinning formula or buying out of pocket to get thru the whole month.

[LucyStoner]

 

"poor" people working the system get plenty of help. Let's be honest.

 

 

The average "Broke" middle class family is struggling.

 

I will tell all the people I know skipping meals, going without needed medical care, sleeping in shelters, living in vehicles or literally sleeping under the freeway while getting some form of public assistance that that they are getting plenty the next time I see each of them. Seriously, I doubt you know many people receiving assistance well if you think this. I work with hundreds of them and your narrative does not add up.

 

What kills me about stuff like this from the Heritage Foundation is that none of it is in line with the Christian principals of the leaders' religion. At all.

[LucyStoner]

FWIW, very often WIC does not cover ENOUGH formula. I'm sure some would argue that it's not the government's job to provide ALL of your baby's food, but whatever. I have heard from multiple sources that families end up thinning formula or buying out of pocket to get thru the whole month.

 

And some are nearly dying of water poisoning and starvation because of it.

 

http://beta2.tbo.com/news/news/2008/dec/02/na-diluted-formula-nearly-kills-baby-ar-121176/

 

Terribly sad.

[MSNative]

I will tell all the people I know skipping meals, going without needed medical care, sleeping in shelters, living in vehicles or literally sleeping under the freeway while getting some form of public assistance that that they are getting plenty the next time I see each of them. Seriously, I doubt you know many people receiving assistance well if you think this. I work with hundreds of them and your narrative does not add up.

 

What kills me about stuff like this from the Heritage Foundation is that none of it is in line with the Christian principals of the leaders' religion. At all.

 

Well, Christian principles do not necessarily mean that the gov't must provide these things. We don't know the charitable giving and volunteering habits of people at Heritage Foundation.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

For me, poverty is defined by the lack of choices. I don't think it is primarily a measurement of finances, personal property, or standard of living, although these are components of the definition. But IMO, poverty is more a matter of meeting dead ends, than it is about the impossibility of accumulating personal wealth.

 

In my years (before children) as a social worker in both urban and rural areas (and everything in between), what struck me with some families was the almost total absence of resources for building a life --

 

• good physical health
  
• stable mental health
  
• freedom from addiction & self-destruction
  
• a functional family of childhood
  
• extended family (present in some subcultures)
  
• money skills
  
• home-making skills (e.g., cooking from scratch, sewing on a button, laundering out a stain, organizing an area of the home, changing bedding, etc.)
  
• work habits & ethic
  
• earned self-esteem
  
• safe neighborhoods
  
• strong schools
  

In some communities, there was simply nothing upon which my clients could build a life. Zero. It was astonishing. No one could safely be trusted to care for three or four small children while mom went to look for a job, even if she wanted to try. No one could read to the children at night, while the large-screen TV blared continually, because no one could read. The grandparents wanted to care for the children, but she had a stroke (high BP) and he was dealing with cancer and diabetes. The homes were full of bullet holes, the stairwells were full of needles and cond0ms (all used) :tongue_smilie:, the basketball courts were full of sweaty young men going nowhere, the street corners were full of young women stuffed into low-cut tops and tight-tight jeans and bling and nails and hair and ... sigh.

 

I mean, if you were stuck in that setting, what would you use for your bricks and mortar with which to build a life? In all that time I had ONE -- yes, ONE -- client who "made it out" to a better, fuller, healthier life. She worked full-time, went to school at night (Daylight/Twilight), attended all foster care meetings, court, whatever it took... to get her crack-addicted sister's child out of the ghetto of that city. I will never forget her grit.

 

I was changed by it.

 

But looking back, I can see that even she would not have been able to do the climb without some sort of helping hand -- the free (reliable) childcare, the free schooling, the support during her time of establishing a decent life. It's daunting enough for those of us who "have it all." What's it like when you just can't find any choices in the painful struggle to build a life? IMO, the crisis of the truly poor is that they do not, on their own, have what they need to build healthy lives, because the resources simply are not there.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:As a nurse, I met many, many people without cultural or other resources. I remember dh said that he grew up poor but I told him that they were not culturally poor. His mother is highly educated, resourceful, talented, and responsible. His family gave him the gift of culture, education, life skills, and so on. I have met so many people who have none of these things and in fact have devastating family circumstances that IMHO can be extremely difficult to get out of:(.

 

It is disturbing to me that we are comparing America's poor with other countries and pointing that we have refrigerators, phones, etc. What is the Heritage Foundation saying? Are they saying that we should have a race to the bottom and have people in America without toilets, refrigerators, etc??? I also think cell phones are a necessity if one want to work these days. Also, many cities are pedestrian unfriendly and lack public transportation and as a result cars are necessary for jobs in many cases. I agree large screen TVs and what not are not necessities.

[MSNative]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:As a nurse, I met many, many people without cultural or other resources. I remember dh said that he grew up poor but I told him that they were not culturally poor. His mother is highly educated, resourceful, talented, and responsible. His family gave him the gift of culture, education, life skills, and so on. I have met so many people who have none of these things and in fact have devastating family circumstances that IMHO can be extremely difficult to get out of:(.

 

It is disturbing to me that we are comparing America's poor with other countries and pointing that we have refrigerators, phones, etc. What is the Heritage Foundation saying? Are they saying that we should have a race to the bottom and have people in America without toilets, refrigerators, etc??? I also think cell phones are a necessity if one want to work these days. Also, many cities are pedestrian unfriendly and lack public transportation and as a result cars are necessary for jobs in many cases. I agree large screen TVs and what not are not necessities.

 

So does that mean there is no end to the poverty cycle? Not snarky, truly asking. Put another way, since assistance and all of the other programs in place aren't/can't cut it, what will work?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Either you live in a part of the world where financial difficulties are wildly different than mine, or you have exaggerated your numbers.

 

Here a "brand-new fancy phone" costs about $400-500, unless you renew a 2-year contract (which is minimally $50/mo with no data package and $80 with...data would be necessary for smart phone.

 

My heating bill only goes above $100 in the dead of winter, even then it doesn't reach $200. Someone living below the poverty line would be heating a smaller house, so theoretically they would be paying less.

 

My car insurance is around $60.

 

An iPod is $200 for the more modest ones.

 

I don't know what it means to be an adult if not having the ability to prioritize food over gadgets. And yes, I have been on WIC and yes, I have come out behind MANY months. I don't begrudge poor people luxury items...but for us it was a $15 dinner out or a half gallon of ice cream, not an expensive phone.

 

My heating bill this past winter wwas about $500 to $600 per month with the heat usually set at 60 to 65 degrees:001_huh: I don't ever recall a $100 heating bill. As for smart phones, I think some fancy looking phones can be had for much less money than you think.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree:Although I don't share your experience on WIC.

 

I also get aggravated when I see people picking-up food at the food pantry (coincides with preschool pick-up) with a cigarette in their mouth. There's nothing to be done about it but it chaps my hide.

 

Smoking is one of the hardest things to stop:( I have heard that it is more addictive than heroin. I unfortunately made the mistake of trying smoking in the 70s since everyone smoked in the 60s and 70s and became addicted at 13 to cigarettes before I even finished the first pack. I took me 17 years to finally quit and it was the hardest thing to do ever for me. Many are not so fortunate to be able to stop:(

[stripe]

My heating bill only goes above $100 in the dead of winter, even then it doesn't reach $200. Someone living below the poverty line would be heating a smaller house, so theoretically they would be paying less.

 

My car insurance is around $60.

 

 

I know no one with heat bills so low, and car insurance is way higher in bad neighborhoods.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So does that mean there is no end to the poverty cycle? Not snarky, truly asking. Put another way, since assistance and all of the other programs in place aren't/can't cut it, what will work?

 

I don't have the answers. I did read that welfare reform did help to take a significant amount of people of the roles and back to work. That is a good thing. Obviously, anything that encourages work is a good thing:)

 

As for the cultural problems, I think that is much harder to fix. I believe in strong public schools and radical school choice as well as vouchers as a start but obviously the problem is mutlifactorial.

[LucyStoner]

Well, Christian principles do not necessarily mean that the gov't must provide these things. We don't know the charitable giving and volunteering habits of people at Heritage Foundation.

 

I don't reckon Christ would care much about the reason why anyone lets their brothers and sisters starve, just that some of their brothers and sisters were starving and they looked them in the face and moved right along. I don't need to know the charitable giving and volunteering habits of anyone specifically to know that there are vast unmet needs and abject poverty in my very rich city and this very rich country. I see, speak to and try to help people in dire need each and everyday. And I still know, deeply and troublingly, that I am not doing enough. Most people don't even acknowledge they exist, give an average of less than 2-3% of their income annually to any form of charity or church (much less directly to charities and churches using those funds to help the poor specifically) and continue to over consume resources personally.

 

Charity is not enough. Structural changes, beyond government and charity crumb programs that literally are the last stop gap before bread riots, are needed.

Edited August 27, 2011 by kijipt

[MSNative]

I don't have the answers. I did read that welfare reform did help to take a significant amount of people of the roles and back to work. That is a good thing. Obviously, anything that encourages work is a good thing:)

 

As for the cultural problems, I think that is much harder to fix. I believe in strong public schools and radical school choice as well as vouchers as a start but obviously the problem is mutlifactorial.

 

I agree. I could bore you with details of my senior thesis on welfare reform - I mean it is late. Do you need a sleeping pill in the form of that? :) However, sensible welfare reform that encourages employment rather than penalizing it works. Our system is incredible inefficient, wasteful and doesn't always help those who need it (those who fall through the cracks.) I think you are spot on with your education solutions as a start, too. I'm not sure what else needs to happen, but man, if we could reform welfare and fix the education system, I'd be pretty happy.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Well, Christian principles do not necessarily mean that the gov't must provide these things. We don't know the charitable giving and volunteering habits of people at Heritage Foundation.

 

Yes but charitable donations can already be written as a tax write off. Where are all of the charities to take the place of government assistance programs??? I know many churches are struggling to make ends meet already:(.

[Tmhearn]

I have found this thread to be quite fascinating. I did want to throw out one thing that I was surprised not to see mentioned. When we are speaking of the poverty level in terms of income, (and what programs people do or do not qualify for) any other assets are not included. So, I can live in a $200,000 home but qualify for WIC and food stamps if my income falls below a certain level. I can also have a 401k, IRA, savings account, etc.

 

So, judging someone's financial situation on their income alone is highly inaccurate.

[deacongirl]

I don't reckon Christ would care much about the reason why anyone lets their brothers and sisters starve, just that some of their brothers and sisters were starving and they looked them in the face and moved right along. I don't need to know the charitable giving and volunteering habits of anyone specifically to know that there are vast unmet needs and abject poverty in my very rich city and this very rich country. I see, speak to and try to help people in dire need each and everyday. And I still know, deeply and troublingly, that I am not doing enough. Most people don't even acknowledge they exist, give an average of less than 2-3% of their income annually to any form of charity or church (much less directly to charities and churches using those funds to help the poor specifically) and continue to over consume resources personally.

 

Charity is not enough. Structural changes, beyond government and charity crumb programs that literally are the last stop gap before bread riots, are needed.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the scene in The Help when the maid asks Hilly for a loan to pay for her son's tuition.

 

I think that the following two organizations are making a difference in the lives of those living in poverty, but I also believe that government has a role to play.

 

http://www.urbanpromiseusa.org/

 

http://www.mercystreetdallas.org/

[Renee in NC]

I have found this thread to be quite fascinating. I did want to throw out one thing that I was surprised not to see mentioned. When we are speaking of the poverty level in terms of income, (and what programs people do or do not qualify for) any other assets are not included. So, I can live in a $200,000 home but qualify for WIC and food stamps if my income falls below a certain level. I can also have a 401k, IRA, savings account, etc.

 

So, judging someone's financial situation on their income alone is highly inaccurate.

 

Not true - most programs have an assets test. Homes are generally not counted, but cars and savings definitely are here in NC.

[Amy in NH]

When you know that, no matter how much you scrimp and save, you're still going to come out behind, it's a lot easier to just say, "Screw it. Let's just eat out/buy the phone, because even if we don't we're still not going to come close to covering the bills this month."

 

:iagree:

[LucyStoner]

Yes but charitable donations can already be written as a tax write off. Where are all of the charities to take the place of government assistance programs??? I know many churches are struggling to make ends meet already:(.

 

People do not give because of the tax deductions. Most givers never qualify or even choose to use those deductions for any number of reasons- the standard deduction is still the better deal unless they have a lot of mortgage interest, they prefer to not track their donations, they forgot they gave etc.

 

People give because they want to give.

 

But you are absolutely right- there are not enough charities to replace the role of say, the WIC program. And when taxes have fallen, donations to charities have not risen. I work for a change centered non-profit organization- we help the unemployable earn personal income. Most of our constituents are elderly, disabled or both. Many are veterans. It is a shame that in our culture we can't find a way to care for, decently, people who are too old or sick to work regular jobs. There are not even jobs enough for people who are highly or moderately employable. What precisely do we expect people with NO regular employment hopes to do? Eat out of dumpsters? Live in their cars? Believe me, they already are.

Edited August 27, 2011 by kijipt

[kalanamak]

So....50% of people who buy beer and cigarettes are poor?

 

 

??? She meant the sales across the board, averaged, not 50% of the purchasers suddenly buying nothing.

[Renee in NC]

??? She meant the sales across the board, averaged, not 50% of the purchasers suddenly buying nothing.

 

I totally missed that...must be too tired to comprehend.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

People do not give because of the tax deductions. Most givers never qualify or even choose to use those deductions for any number of reasons- the standard deduction is still the better deal unless they have a lot of mortgage interest, they prefer to not track their donations, they forgot they gave etc.

 

People give because they want to give.

 

But you are absolutely right- there are not enough charities to replace the role of say, the WIC program. And when taxes have fallen, donations to charities have not risen. I work for a change centered non-profit organization- we help the unemployable earn personal income. Most of our constituents are elderly, disabled or both. Many are veterans. It is a shame that in our culture we can't find a way to care for, decently, people who are too old or sick to work regular jobs. There are not even jobs enough for people who are highly or moderately employable. What precisely do we expect people with NO regular employment hopes to do? Eat out of dumpsters? Live in their cars? Believe me, they already are.

 

I agree that many give because they want to give. What I am saying is that even with tax incentives to give to charity, there is not nearly enough charity that could help those in need. I believe it is necessary for government assistance programs whereas some people believe there should only be charitable organizations to help the poor. IMHO I think charity will never be able meet all the needs of the poor.

[LucyStoner]

I agree that many give because they want to give. What I am saying is that even with tax incentives to give to charity, there is not nearly enough charity that could help those in need. I believe it is necessary for government assistance programs whereas some people believe there should only be charitable organizations to help the poor. IMHO I think charity will never be able meet all the needs of the poor.

 

Oh, we are in 100% agreement. The government basically solved the issue of homelessness in the 1940s. And we went and recreated it with government policies in the 1980s. Pennywise and pound foolish (in addition to just being wrong IMO) because the costs of homelessness in emergency care, detox care, wasted educational spending and prison costs far outstrip housing costs.

[8circles]

Smoking is one of the hardest things to stop:( I have heard that it is more addictive than heroin. I unfortunately made the mistake of trying smoking in the 70s since everyone smoked in the 60s and 70s and became addicted at 13 to cigarettes before I even finished the first pack. I took me 17 years to finally quit and it was the hardest thing to do ever for me. Many are not so fortunate to be able to stop:(

 

Im sorry. I've got my own battles so I get it. Thanks for taking my comment how it was intended.:grouphug:

[Meriwether]

So does that mean there is no end to the poverty cycle? Not snarky, truly asking. Put another way, since assistance and all of the other programs in place aren't/can't cut it, what will work?

 

I don't remember the exact stat, but I heard that the vast majority of people who get out of poverty have a mentor that teaches them how.

[deacongirl]

I don't remember the exact stat, but I heard that the vast majority of people who get out of poverty have a mentor that teaches them how.

 

Mentoring is a huge part of the success of both Mercy Street and Urban Promise. But, again, IMO the families who are living in poverty need more than charity.

 

From http://www.ihmsjc.org/Charity%20vs%20Justice.htm

 

 

CHARITY AND JUSTICE

Charity and justice are two distinct components within social ministry that answer the call to new life in the world: two ends of a spectrum of living out our faith. Both encompass compassionate caring for the oppressed, the poor and the vulnerable. Both define our call to live out the Gospel of God’s love and reconciliation. Yet they differ in scope, in method, in goals. Complementary, yes. The same, no.

Charity, or outreach, responds to an immediate need. It provides direct service such as food, clothing or shelter. Often a private and individual act of caring, it is directed toward the effects of social injustice. Charity is satisfying and is generally non-controversial.

Charity alone, however, is only part of social mission of the Catholic church. We must go deeper to forge vibrant, healthy, and abundant new life. We must ask more questions. This is the work of justice.

While charity deals with immediate needs, justice addresses long-term conditions, promoting social change in institutions, policies and systems. Justice is public, political, and oriented to collective action for change. It directs us toward the causes of social injustice. This is exciting, yet sometimes controversial.

 

 

And Justice and the Limits of Charity:

http://www.davidhilfiker.com/docs/Justice/Justice%20&%20Charity.htm

Edited August 27, 2011 by deacongirl
fix link

[Rosie_0801]

I don't remember the exact stat, but I heard that the vast majority of people who get out of poverty have a mentor that teaches them how.

 

And they have to be tough enough to push aside the tall poppy syndrome. That's not easy.

 

Rosie

[kalanamak]

And they have to be tough enough to push aside the tall poppy syndrome. That's not easy.

 

Rosie

 

It involves losing ties to all you know, and entering a world you may not ever be thought of as "belonging in". I recall riding a subway in New York, and two straphangers were "talking Jive" (I use this to mean they sounded like Barbara B in Airplane!), although not quite so extreme. I caught that one had a BIL who was so good he thought his "sh*t don't stink". The other guy asked what he did, and the first man broke into Standard English. This was followed by contempt from both.

 

I also saw this in the farm boys I mechanic'd with. It was clear from the hostile jokes about educated people that they would lose ties to the rather warm, close, long-established community they were from. It was sad.

 

I work with a great guy. He's from a really rough part of the desert, from an ethnic group associated with gangs. Many relatives are in jail or dead. He's a smart cookie, a great and caring guy with a terrific wife from an educated family. I see him as confident and tough, but man, when he has to step outside of his comfort zone of knowledge, I see an anxious boy who is scrabbling to keep up. I see how he fixes his eye on me when I'm explaining something, and I slow down a little when he gets that uh-oh look. I quietly correct his grammar for him, when we are alone, and his spelling, and he is eager, eager, eager to learn, but man, it hurts to see him dismissed by some high and mighty jerk.

[weaver_67579]

I heard this at Dave Ramsey-financial peace class last week and find it to be very true in my own family-and people I know.

 

Being poor is just a state of being-you are going through a rough patch and are working your way up and out-just traveling through. Both DH and I grew up poor.

 

Thinking poor is living in such a way to perpetuate the situation. I saw comments upthread on having tv-fancy phone... or on saying "just screw it and get the... because we can't pay the bills anyway. This is poor thinking. Sure you can get a fancy tv for free or as a gift-do you need cable or dish network to watch it-that is a luxury you can't afford if you cannot pay all your bills on your own. It is not a need-same thing with a fancy phone that you will have to pay a lot for the monthly calling plan. It would be better to spend as little as necessary-and get a cheap/free cheap phone than the fancy one you have to pay for a data plan for. Nobody "deserves" to go out to eat or have anything above basic human needs of food, shelter, clothing and transportation and none of those need to be fancy. We make a very good living right now-but if it is not in the budget-we don't go or buy it-period. In fact-we won't go at all this coming month since we have some very large car repairs to make. Even if these things are only small savings-they can add up. $5 saved can be a gallon of milk for the kids-or $5 more paid on a bill, or $5 saved for a rainy day. I find a lot of the above mentioned behavior to be a lack of desire to wait for things you want. I have family that are good at thinking poor-and they will likely stay that way. It is sad, but the I want it now mentality is not going to help them out in the long run.

 

Btw-we do donate a fair amount to our church-which does support local and world-wide charities for the poor. I do not begrudge people assistance that cannot work or have had personal setbacks. I'm more of a hand up person than a hand out person though and prefer charities that require some personal accountability for the recipient. Internationally-I love heifer international that teaches people to grow their own food and then requires them in turn to share the knowledge and in the case of livestock-share some with others in need. We have made donations to them. Locally-our church supports a family shelter that helps get families off the streets by providing temporary shelter and helping them find employment and helping with skills to keep them on the road up and out of their situation. I believe they require no drug or alcohol use-and i don't know what else. I know a lot of the churches in the area also band together to help with personal need such as heating, but in some cases (where the people have been known to church charity hop from church to church) require the people to attend some fianancial counseling to get the assistance-so they do not continue on with the cycle of making poor decisions and then having problems.

 

As for counting assistance money as income-I don't really know what to think.

[SKL]

One doesn't have to go to grad school and don a suit in order to better oneself. Just getting and keeping a full-time job would be fine. It's not like nobody in low-income neighborhoods works or earns enough to feed their children.

 

PS, the definition of low-income community is one where 20%+ of people are in poverty, or the median income is below 80% of the benchmark median income. I work in the field of community development, and even the most distressed areas still have a lot of people working and doing OK. I don't agree that it requires an entire change of culture that will necessarily make one unpopular in the root community. And I think it is unhelpful - nay, counterproductive - to adopt a philosophy that poverty is essentially incurable. Yes, there will always be poor people, but the same people need not always be poor.

[Rosy]

I will tell all the people I know skipping meals, going without needed medical care, sleeping in shelters, living in vehicles or literally sleeping under the freeway while getting some form of public assistance that that they are getting plenty the next time I see each of them. Seriously, I doubt you know many people receiving assistance well if you think this. I work with hundreds of them and your narrative does not add up.

 

What kills me about stuff like this from the Heritage Foundation is that none of it is in line with the Christian principals of the leaders' religion. At all.

 

Jesus never said that the government should create inefficient programs to feed the poor. Poverty is a real and heartbreaking problem, but you don't get to say that failing to support government programs is anti-Christian. Talk about judgmental. Also, who's to say that all of the Heritage Foundation's leaders are Christians? There are many non-Christians that support conservative principles.

 

All the article was saying (if I understand it correctly) is that to be poor in America is nothing like being poor in other countries, and most of the American poor has a much higher standard of living than what the rest of the world would consider poor.

 

When we got off of WIC and Basic Health (WA state's low-income health insurance program) we saw no change in our standard of living, even though DH was earning twice as much money. If anything, it went down. I think we need to make it easier to get off of assistance--for many people there is no incentive to make changes. If someone can live the same lifestyle making $27k and getting help as if they make $50k but get no more assistance and have to move to a more expensive area, why would they?

[SKL]

Re Jesus and the poor: actually when Judas started having a hissy about using expensive stuff to clean Jesus' feet instead of using it for the poor, Jesus said something to the effect of "the poor will always be with you, but I won't." He didn't say, "yes, let's give our treasury to the government so they can set up a public housing program that evicts working folks for getting merit raises and makes it illegal to provide shelter to the poorest families." Just sayin'.

[Rosy]

Re Jesus and the poor: actually when Judas started having a hissy about using expensive stuff to clean Jesus' feet instead of using it for the poor, Jesus said something to the effect of "the poor will always be with you, but I won't." He didn't say, "yes, let's give our treasury to the government so they can set up a public housing program that evicts working folks for getting merit raises and makes it illegal to provide shelter to the poorest families." Just sayin'.

 

Thank you--I meant to bring that up in my post. Just an FYI--this perfume that was "wasted" on Jesus was not a $200 bottle from the perfume counter at Macy's, it was worth 2/3 of a year's wages.

[LucyStoner]

Jesus never said that the government should create inefficient programs to feed the poor. Poverty is a real and heartbreaking problem, but you don't get to say that failing to support government programs is anti-Christian. Talk about judgmental.

 

Point of fact, that is not what I said. I implied that this sort of anti-poor people stuff spouted off routinely by the Heritage Foundation is not in line with the Christian values that many of their leadership and supporters hold.

 

It may salve our guilt to reassure ourselves that the poor in the US have it better than the poor in many other countries, but it does not exonerate us for turning our backs on them. There is nothing moral or Christian about excusing indifference. How do I know people are indifferent? Because so many people are poor. And rather than see that poverty for what it is, we actively work to find ways and write reports to blame poor people and minimize their very real suffering. It is disgusting to me but not the least bit surprising. This hatred of poor people takes many forms, from the same sorry reports, to ignoring people on the street, all the way to middle class thugs beating up and murdering homeless people for sport. Eating out of a trash can, sleeping in an alley and having people spit on you, laugh at you and sometimes even hit you for your very existence sounds pretty darn third world to me. :glare:

[SKL]

I don't think anyone is anti-poor. We just have different views of what actually helps the poor and what doesn't. The continuing existence of poverty in the USA may not be "proof" of indifference, but it's certainly proof that the government programs and the philosophy behind them aren't working.

 

To the extent we leave poverty issues up to the government, the poor will be exploited by the politicians. The more politicians interfere with economics, the more economic "solutions" are going to stink.

 

I love the assumption some people make that people of my view must be uncharitable, mean, out-of-touch people. In fact, I've always given much more to charity than the average person (especially the average liberal), in addition to performing hundreds of hours of volunteer work annually for many years (fewer once I became a mom). I co-founded a charity and actively served on five nonprofit boards. I've worked directly with some of the most distressed families and individuals around. I've won awards and recognition for a considerable range of community activities. I have created jobs for people from low-income backgrounds. My job involves investing in low-income community businesses. And my own family has plenty of personal history in low-income land.

 

With that background, it frankly makes me sick to see so much good money thrown after bad when it does NO GOOD for the people most in need.

 

Just remember, there's a lot of money to be made in the poverty industry. Lots to lose if too many people pull themselves out. Therefore, be skeptical.

 

On another note, most of us are in this community because we don't trust the government to educate our children. Why is it easier to trust the government to "save" poor people?

[LucyStoner]

You are reading what you want to see in my posts, not what is there. I do not think that government is the solution. I do not think charity is the solution. If either was alone, there would be no problem. I think the issue is much more complex than that. We can not afford to pat ourselves on the back (and I have been so guilty of this) for doing a little here and there to help people. We can not afford to think that government spending alone or in copious amounts is a silver bullet. Clearly, clearly not.

 

I was a homeless child. I know poverty personally. I am a middle class adult. I have poured my career into working for social change and not charity. I am the last person to ever think that poor people only need external forces to "save" "them".

 

However, economic policies and government priorities do impact the quality of life and the viability of life for many. Charity only gives about 10% of what goes to keep people from being that much closer to more and more extreme levels of poverty. On an individual level, few hate the poor. But as a group, many people behave in ways that has at best disregard for poor people and worse, often carries hate. Seriously, I have seen up close and personal how so many people slip into forgetting that the visibly poor are as human or as important as they consider themselves.

Edited August 27, 2011 by kijipt

[zenjenn]

I think this real class warfare we are experiencing in current times stems from a lack of stigma. Those who feel entitled to assistance, and those who are irritated that people feel entitled to assistance.

 

It used to be a tremendous embarrassment to have to accept charity or public assistance. It can be fairly argued that at one time, the stigma was too great, but now, I fear it has gone the other direction.

 

People are advised to go get assistance for anything they qualify for, at all times. As a homeschooler I've had many friends, when I started dealing with my daughter's learning disability, insist that I go to the public school system and DEMAND evaluation and intervention. That even if I'm not in the school system it is my RIGHT to get X, Y, or Z.

 

When the tornadoes hit Alabama, our county worked hard to get on the federal relief list, and immediately neighbors were like "WOO! WE QUALIFY! Go fill out the form to get your shingles replaced!"

 

Whether one truly need assistance or not has become secondary to just taking it if you qualify. Gone is even the polite refusal before accepting the proverbial host's office. Just accept right off. No, demand it!

 

I do know and concede there are many honorable people of firm convictions who still cling to the stigma in appropriate form, seeing assistance as what it is - charity - and a burden that must be paid forward when one sees better times.

 

But that's NOT the common, run-of-the-mill attitude on the street. Now people can rest easy that their free lunches and food stamps will go unnoticed by onlookers.

 

Stigma is not ALWAYS a bad thing for a society.

[LucyStoner]

I think this real class warfare we are experiencing in current times stems from a lack of stigma.

 

Feeling like a person, regardless of economic means, is not waging war despite the frequent charge of class warfare directed at anyone who has the audacity to suggest that people sometimes need a helping hand and some safety net, made of many things, public and private, is in everyone's best interest.

Edited August 27, 2011 by kijipt

[kalanamak]

 

On another note, most of us are in this community because we don't trust the government to educate our children.

 

???

I missed that memo.

[Ipsey]

Re Jesus and the poor: actually when Judas started having a hissy about using expensive stuff to clean Jesus' feet instead of using it for the poor, Jesus said something to the effect of "the poor will always be with you, but I won't." He didn't say, "yes, let's give our treasury to the government so they can set up a public housing program that evicts working folks for getting merit raises and makes it illegal to provide shelter to the poorest families." Just sayin'.

 

I've heard Christians say they don't give to charities to save the poor and starving for just this reason. Talked a Chrsitian about the Somalian famine just the other day who thought the same. "Jesus said the poor will always be around, so it's no good trying to fix [the cycle of poverty]. It's really sad, but it'll (children dying in Somalia) happen no matter what we do. " Honestly!

Same reason Ken Ham gave in his blog several days ago about why Christians shouldn't try to take care of (believe in :)) human caused global climate change.

I view this as religiously inspired learned helplessness.

[SKL]

Feeling like a person, regardless of economic means, is not waging war despite the frequent charge of class warfare directed at anyone who has the audacity to suggest that people sometimes need a helping hand and some safety net, made of many things, public and private, is in everyone's best interest.

 

Everyone should feel like it's OK to ask for help when they NEED it. That's what charity is there for. But that's a different issue from adopting the attitude that subsidies should be sought just as a matter of course, or even that choices should be made that increase the likelihood of getting assistance. There is a lot of that going on, whether people choose to see it or not.

 

When you say "feeling like a person" I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Does one feel more like a "person" when, as earlier suggested as "understandable" in this thread, someone takes money that ought to pay bills (i.e., morally belonging to someone else) and uses it to buy something they don't need? Or (also suggested as OK) uses assistance money to buy smokes, booze, or drugs instead of properly taking care of their family and trying to better themselves? Does one "feel like a person" when one sleeps in because going out to look for a job is neither fun nor necessary?

 

Personally I feel that each of these subsidized, encouraged, "understandable" choices kills the spirit and makes the individual feel LESS like a person.

 

It's not that I want people to be publicly shamed, but they should have a feeling that that kind of status quo is very uncomfortable and be motivated to change it. Instead, our society just gives them reasons why it's "understandable" / all someone else's fault. And our government actually designs some of the subsidies to punish people when they do better.

 

It should scare us when people get to the point where they say "I should have government help just because my family has needs." People seem to forget that that help is funded by other families who also have needs. And by companies that need to limit their workforce in order to afford their tax bill. They seem to think that the tax pool is inexhaustible, even though most people pay little or nothing into it. This is neither sustainable nor healthy. But, it wins votes, so . . . .

[TXMomof4]

Jesus never said that the government should create inefficient programs to feed the poor. Poverty is a real and heartbreaking problem, but you don't get to say that failing to support government programs is anti-Christian. Talk about judgmental. Also, who's to say that all of the Heritage Foundation's leaders are Christians? There are many non-Christians that support conservative principles.

 

All the article was saying (if I understand it correctly) is that to be poor in America is nothing like being poor in other countries, and most of the American poor has a much higher standard of living than what the rest of the world would consider poor.

 

When we got off of WIC and Basic Health (WA state's low-income health insurance program) we saw no change in our standard of living, even though DH was earning twice as much money. If anything, it went down. I think we need to make it easier to get off of assistance--for many people there is no incentive to make changes. If someone can live the same lifestyle making $27k and getting help as if they make $50k but get no more assistance and have to move to a more expensive area, why would they?

 

:iagree: I would actually say that pushing the responsibility for caring for the poor to the government instead of taking a personal responsibility is more of a problem. We all know how ineffectual the gov. is at using the resources to effect real solutions. I know how wasteful the gov. is with the money they do get from me. If I paid $100 more in taxes, I doubt one single person would be helped with food, clothing, housing, etc. But if I take that same $100 to a real person I can provide a few weeks of groceries, pay the electric, provide clothing. Then you have a personal involvement with that person and a real motive to help the person - not the "poor".

[SKL]

I've heard Christians say they don't give to charities to save the poor and starving for just this reason. Talked a Chrsitian about the Somalian famine just the other day who thought the same. "Jesus said the poor will always be around, so it's no good trying to fix [the cycle of poverty]. It's really sad, but it'll (children dying in Somalia) happen no matter what we do. " Honestly!

Same reason Ken Ham gave in his blog several days.

 

I'm not trying to say Christians should not be charitable. Of course they should. (Taxes are a lot different from charity, by the way.) But people should stop using Jesus to push a one-sided view of the war on poverty. I'm pretty sure that if we asked Jesus right now, he'd express disgust at the way some government programs help destroy families and souls.

 

Charity in Jesus' time was about (a) forgiveness and (b) helping people who physically could not help themselves.

 

I'm not against all subsidies, but they should have to meet a test that considers long-term effect on spirit, family, and community.

[Nestof3]

I think the entire thing is too confusing to sort out, but having had experience with those who do qualify for this and that, it has upset me.

 

Because we chose to only have three children, and because my husband starts work at 7:30 am, and because we choose to live in a small house, we are fine. (I certainly don't mean this is the case for everyone -- just comparing to the next scenario).

 

Another family chooses to have nine children, buy 20 acres of land, build a 4,000 sq ft house, and save $10,000-20,000 a year because they qualify for health care for kids. We spend close to $10,000 with premiums and actual care. Their dad stays home (he's self-employed too) until 11:00 if it takes that long to parent his children properly. Because of the number of children (and what he doesn't claim in income), he qualifies for assistance.

 

We also have another friend who's self-employed in the lawn business. The guy's father-in-law receives disability payments. But, he goes out and actually works for his son-in-law to earn extra money.

 

I realize not all scenarios are like this, but I know of at least five, and it taints my opinion for sure.

[SKL]

However, economic policies and government priorities do impact the quality of life and the viability of life for many. Charity only gives about 10% of what goes to keep people from being that much closer to more and more extreme levels of poverty. On an individual level, few hate the poor. But as a group, many people behave in ways that has at best disregard for poor people and worse, often carries hate. Seriously, I have seen up close and personal how so many people slip into forgetting that the visibly poor are as human or as important as they consider themselves.

 

I believe that this is largely because of the attitude that it's the government's responsibility to fix poverty / take care of poor people. (And old people, and sick people, etc.) It's like we've delegated our responsibility to care - which is really our responsibility to love. The government may be able to feed people, but it is not able to love people. This mistake needs to be reversed, not further perpetuated.

[leeannpal]

I will tell all the people I know skipping meals, going without needed medical care, sleeping in shelters, living in vehicles or literally sleeping under the freeway while getting some form of public assistance that that they are getting plenty the next time I see each of them. Seriously, I doubt you know many people receiving assistance well if you think this. I work with hundreds of them and your narrative does not add up.

 

What kills me about stuff like this from the Heritage Foundation is that none of it is in line with the Christian principals of the leaders' religion. At all.

:iagree: