Here is the "1%" in the U.S. OCD_OCD: Or is it the 99%? LOL http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/feds-%E2%80%98poor%E2%80%99-consume-rich/348206 January 30, 2012 11:49am 226 Comments Feds: ‘Poor’ Consume Like The Rich byPaul Bedard As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else. Forget the image of Appalachia or rundown ghettos: A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo. “What the government defines as poverty is vastly different from what most Americans envision,” he writes in his newly released book, “The People’s Money.” Consider other details from two recent Department of Agriculture surveys cited in the book: --On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal. --On any day, children are hungry in .25 percent of U.S. homes. --96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food. --83 percent of the poor said they have enough to eat. Says Rasmussen, “About 40 million Americans are officially defined as living below the poverty line. Yet most of those have adequate levels of food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Sixty-three percent of American adults believe such a family is not living in poverty,” he writes. “Only 16 percent believe that a family is living in poverty if it has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR, but that’s what the average family living in poverty has as defined by the U.S. government,” he adds. (Edited by OCD_OCD) OCD_OCD: And don't forget the governmentally required mobile phones for the poor. I don't know why that wasn't in there. LOL Sarcastic Dots: You know, the issue with class warfare is it works both ways. This guy sounds totally embittered by the fact that poor people in America aren't totally impoverished. How is that a bad thing? Does he want the rich to be taxed less so that the poor do live in ghetto's? I'm confused at the point of this article, other than to say he thinks poor people should be poorer. davidk14: . Dots, Perhaps what was being said here is that in the US, 83% of the 'poor' say they have enough to eat. There are billions of people that say they do not have enough to eat. So, the point is, perhaps the 83% of the US poor should not be considered poor? . OCD_OCD: To me it means that it is disgusting to be told over and over by the administration how many "poor" people we have here. Many countries would dream to be "poor" here. davidk14: . In the past I have employed 'poor' immigrants from Mexico. They were happy to be employed in the US at a minimum wage job. They sent money to their families in Mexico on that wage. Those folks told me what being poor is about. I went to Mexico on a fishing trip a few years back. We brought our used cloths with us and donated to the poor people....who were living in cardboard boxes, without shoes, without running water, without electricity, day after day. 24/7/365....nothing. Now that's poor. Government assistance? Mexican government assistance? Non-existent. I left humbled and came home and yelled at my kids....and cried. . . . Sarcastic Dots: Yeah... They would, OCD, but I still don't understand why that's a bad thing. What the developed world views as poverty is far different to what the third world do. If extreme poverty in African nations were the defining factor of ones mental health then suicide rates in Africa would probably outstrip birth rates. I'll give you an example; Education. Back when I attended high school (12-16 here) I wasn't allowed to hand-write essays and everything had to be completed on a computer. By that standard, anyone who doesn't have a computer is impoverished because they are unable to finish their education without buying a computer or paying a substantial amount to go to a cyber-cafe. Poverty is relative to the country you're in. Besides that, I find those percentages a little dubious, as I do with most percentages to sell a book (and make money). But yeah, as stated in the article, you really can't be that poor to afford cable. I do find this slightly contemptible though; "-On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal." I'm sorry- that annoyed me the most and it's the one thing I'm having trouble understanding. P.S. Before anyone says anything about me being entitled. Let it be known that I prefer hand-writing essays to typing them, but I still have to follow their rules. (Edited by Sarcastic Dots) davidk14: . Here's one African nation with high rates... Suicide Rate Hits Alarming Proportions BY ROBERTA OLLENU, 18 JANUARY 2010 Accra — Suicide is fast becoming a menace in Ghana, says a report just released by the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP). The number of reported cases for 2009 alone stands at a whooping 21,500 according to statistics provided by the Association. Most of the reported cases, according to the IASP, resulted from the complex interaction of casual factors, including mental illness, poverty, substance, abuse, social isolation, losses, relationship difficulties and workplace problems. http://allafrica.com/stories/201001181271.html . davidk14: . Here is an article about worldwide suicide rates... The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that each year approximately one million people die from suicide, which represents a global mortality rate of 16 people per 100,000 or one death every 40 seconds. It is predicted that by 2020 the rate of death will increase to one every 20 seconds. The WHO further reports that: In the last 45 years suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide. Suicide is now among the three leading causes of death among those aged 15-44 (male and female). Suicide attempts are up to 20 times more frequent than completed suicides. Although suicide rates have traditionally been highest amongst elderly males, rates among young people have been increasing to such an extent that they are now the group at highest risk in a third of all countries. Mental health disorders (particularly depression and substance abuse) are associated with more than 90% of all cases of suicide. However, suicide results from many complex sociocultural factors and is more likely to occur during periods of socioeconomic, family and individual crisis (e.g. loss of a loved one, unemployment, sexual orientation, difficulties with developing one's identity, disassociation from one's community or other social/belief group, and honour). http://www.iasp.info/pdf/papers/Bertolote.pdf . OCD_OCD: Dots, The 1% who may have missed a meal do not have to miss a meal. No one wants to take food from anyone, but it is difficult when I know people who work hard and don't have the luxury of two cars, or a DVR or cable. and our government seems this impoverished? They choose to spend their money on something else, like their children. The things that many Americans call a necessity are laughable. franklin1950: how many dollars does it require to redistribute each dollar to a needy resipcient .??? 2 to one ? 5 to one ? more ? government efficiency in action . i've heard the numbers mentioned every so often in the news but can't remember the exact amoun .t Outbackjack: Yes go on OCD give the poor a good old kick.Let them eat cake eh? The poverty you speak of is called relative poverty.The main reason the poor in OECD countries have the latest electronic devices is because of the ease with which they can made in modern factories using cheap Chinese labour.Couple this with the fact that so many of these companies are furiously competing leads to a race to the bottom where the consumer wins. Are you seriously saying that poor people are not allowed to experience the joy of watching a DVD or turning on a television? As for owning a mobile phone.Are you seriously saying the unemployed shouldnt be able to own one? HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!! Are you advocating that they sit at home and not be contactable by a potential employer? You cant have your cake and eat it OCD. OCD_OCD: I'm saying, again, Jack, if someone else is having to pay for it, then maybe they should not expect to have (for free) the same things as the people that are paying for it.
OCD_OCD: I don't owe anyone the same quality of life I have if they aren't willing to work like I work to maintain my quality of life. You can't just demand what you want and expect it to be placed in your hand without making some sort of effort. Outbackjack: Now you are assuming that all the poor are unemployed.With a pitiful minimum wage in the U.S it is easy to see how there could be a large amount of working poor. But your solution seems to be Dickinson work houses where there are no T.Vs or any form of entertainment is outlawed. Sarcastic Dots: Being poor doesn't imply you don't work hard, or don't work as hard as those richer than you. A person on minimum wage, with a family, might not be able toa fford a life of luxery, but that doesn't mean he/she doesn't work hard. Likewise, just because you are rich, it doesn't mean you contribute more to society. Wealth and an increased salary aren't the only measurements of hard work and success, far from it. Edit: Beaten by seconds, lol. (Edited by Sarcastic Dots) OCD_OCD: The working poor are completely different than people who live on welfare and do not work. There is a huge difference. The working poor have self-respect and pride in what they have accomplished. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a way of life. Sarcastic Dots: Your original post doesn't make the distinction between the two. (Edited by Sarcastic Dots) OCD_OCD: Point taken, Dots. I have made the distinction on other threads and should have made it again here. Jack? If you want to be a jerk, you're succeeding. Dots had a reasonable and thoughtful response. You, however, do not. Outbackjack: You must have subscribed to that scurrilous rumour that all moderators on Wireclub are successful self made millionaires.Explains the arse licking. | Politics Chat Room 89 People Chatting Similar Conversations |