Should Poverty Be Comfortable?

mheslep

Yes publicly funded grade schools, so to be affordable to all, not publicly run. I think the failure of so many to take advantage of public education as you pointed out earlier is, in part, the fault of state ownership of the schools.

WhoWee

That's a good point Russ. Also (to Malcom) - what level of "poverty" generates crime - and why? The reason for my inquiry is a couple with 4 children earning $29,000 are considered "poor" under the current guidelines - and eligible for a variety of tax re-distribution programs.

IMO - people who sit at home and collect welfare (that aren't working) have personal time to spend. That time can be spent taking advantage of the various education and re-education programs, or volunteering for community service projects, or sitting at home watching TV, or (yes) engaging in criminal activity - there are choices. Also IMO - we are personally responsible for the choices we make.

Poverty is not an excuse for criminal activity - but a Government welfare program that allows idividuals to make choices of how to spenf their personal time can be a facilitator - do you agree?

WhoWee

This is an open question - is a 20% reduction in welfare benefits unreasonable given the current state of the US economy? This would include payments to Section 8 landlords?

WhoWee

Someone just shared an application with me for the Ohio Lifeline Assistance Program. They advertise "250 Free minutes Every Month! Pay Nothing for Local & Long Distance Calls, Texting and More!" Free Premium Brand Cell Phones.

Eligible income levels range from $1,361 per month for a single person to $2,794/mos $33,525/yr for a family of 4, $3,749/mos for 6 and up to $56,445/yr for a family of 8.

The other qualification is someone in the household must participate in Medicaid, food stamps, SSI, National School Lunch, Home Energy Assistance, Section 8, General Assistance/Disability, Ohio Works First or Temprary Assistance to Needy Families, or SSDI.

John Creighto

I'll presume by wealfare you mean money given to the porest of poor. Looking here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...nits=b&fy=fy10

I'll include the items titled: housing as well as family and childern as wealfare:

Family and Childern: 80.1
housing: 50.3
Total: 133.1

The toal budget is 3997.8

Which is about 3% of the federal budget. Does this represent the priority which the nation places on the poorest of poor?

John Creighto

What is your deffinion of comftorable? I would presue if someone is poor there is much reward for changing their situation. Moreover the less resources someone has the more difficult they will have in changing their situation.

John Creighto

What does the world standard mean though in terms of the standard of living. Is it a bowl of rice a week? Clearly in a country like america the bar should be set slightly higher. It is someowhat meaningless to base the bar on income alone as the living costs varry significantly between the developed an underdeveloped world.

mheslep

There must be numerous aspects of lifestyle over looked by setting a monetary stamp on the poverty line. For instance, that $1.25 will buy much more food, and more and better transportation today than it would have in the past (constant dollars).

WhoWee

We touched on this earlier in the thread - from post 71 - regarding US standards.

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/...005-000618.pdf

DoggerDan

Interesting! Both HHS and the Census says I make more than twice the poverty level. Yet I live in an average, 1BR apartment, have few expenditures, shop and eat very frugally, and my budget barely balances.

If I moved to a real dive, had no truck (insurance), didn't have renters or life insurance, gave up Internet and used windows instead of the A/C, I might shave $500.

turbo

Many politicians and their trouble-makers on the right act like SS benefits are a cornucopia of "free money" for slackers who don't deserve it. They also pretend that SS is increasing the deficit, despite the fact that SS is self-funded and can be made fully solvent into the foreseeable future by just increasing the amount of earnings that can be subjected to payroll taxes. Since the wealthy are earning more and more, while the wages of the poor are flat, this would appear to be the most equitable solution. Right-wing reactionaries will disagree, predictably.

Evo

Thread has gone off topic.

Doing cleanup between commercials.