Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition of poverty in the U.S., specifically referencing the 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines, which set the poverty level for a family of four at $22,350 annually. Participants debate whether poverty has become "too comfortable" due to welfare systems and the perception of benefits. The conversation highlights the challenges of home ownership, inflation, and the cultural mindset surrounding property as an investment. Key points include the need for government oversight of welfare and the impact of lower mortgage rates on housing prices.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
  • Knowledge of U.S. welfare systems and their implications
  • Familiarity with economic concepts such as inflation and real estate markets
  • Awareness of the socio-economic factors influencing home ownership
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of welfare programs on poverty levels in the U.S.
  • Explore the relationship between mortgage rates and housing market dynamics.
  • Investigate the cultural perceptions of home ownership and investment in real estate.
  • Examine global poverty statistics and compare them to U.S. poverty metrics.
USEFUL FOR

Economists, social policy analysts, real estate professionals, and anyone interested in the complexities of poverty and welfare in the United States.

  • #121
thephysicsman said:
Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.

This is a matter of personal responsibility and respect for the law.

If a person is injured in an industrial accident and tests positive for pot - do they put their benefits and potential damage claims at risk?

If you don't work and are 100% dependent upon the Government - it should be your personal responsibility to follow all of the laws - or risk your benefits. It's fair and I like the idea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
thephysicsman said:
What do you mean? A lot of people make this claim, but a closer scrutiny reveals that they respect our position just like Stalin "respected" the position of Christians in the Soviet Union. The Christians were allowed to hold their beliefs in their heads, but as soon as they tried to live out their beliefs in practice (building churches, organizing prayer meetings etc.), they were sent to jail. Is this the way you respect the position of people who believe they have the right to keep their own money?

Who else thinks Russ is going to be accused of promoting socialism (as I was) in this thread?:smile: (sorry)
 
  • #123
WhoWee said:
This is a matter of personal responsibility and respect for the law.

The law is not worthy of respect in itself. The only reason one should follow illegitimate laws is to avoid anarchy.

Adults should be free to do put whatever they want in their own body. It's not the duty of the government to protect people from their own stupidity.

WhoWee said:
Who else thinks Russ is going to be accused of promoting socialism (as I was) in this thread?:smile: (sorry)

He seems to be promoting a mild form of fascism.
 
Last edited:
  • #124
thephysicsman said:
The law is not worthy of respect in itself. The only reason one should follow illegitimate laws is to avoid anarchy.

Adults should be free to do put whatever they want in their own body. It's not the duty of the government to protect people from their own stupidity.

Again, the Kentucky plan is to not pay welfare benefits to people who choose to break the law. It's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility - which is more important to you - getting high or Government benefits. The proposed Kentucky law says your need to choose. I think it's fair.
 
  • #125
thephysicsman said:
He's promoting a mild form of fascism.

 
  • #126
WhoWee said:
Again, the Kentucky plan is to not pay welfare benefits to people who choose to break the law. It's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility - which is more important to you - getting high or Government benefits. The proposed Kentucky law says your need to choose. I think it's fair.

I support the plan. It's not fair, but it's more fair than the current system.
 
  • #127
My replies in bold
thephysicsman said:
Note the choice pro-welfare activists give us a biased choice: 1) a welfare state with rich being forced to help the poor, or 2) freedom where nobody ever helps anybody for any reason, whatsoever.

Is that what I said? Or was it a more complicated problem cause by the inequality between compassionate and incompassionate that you still haven't addressed?

This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" !

The best thing would be getting rid of all the government programs. Voluntary donations are more effective and the moral thing to do.

Except that you can't count on them. I will ask you again would you bet the well being of yourself or the well being of your family on volunteer donations? It is easy to say that "people can just give to charity" when you yourself are not the one in need.

Sure. To succeed in the free market competition, you must constantly improve your products or services in order to offer the best value to other people. If customers can find people who are better at helping them, your business may fail.

It is also a matter of undercutting another business through the powers of a larger investment capitol. So it is not always the case that it is because of superior quality that a product or company will excell in a free market. Also successful PR and advertisements contribute to the success of a company which again can be possible through a larger investment capitol than your competitor.

Because economics is not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game.

So if there are two competitive companies in the same market your saying that one company's profits don't translate to lower profits of the other?

You can boycott those people, rendering them disadvantaged.

This again is only an option and a possibility just as a volunteer charity is only a possible outcome. Taking the money out of taxes is a guarantee that those in need will receive what they need to survive.

Lots of very successful people help the weak.

Thats true and many successful people don't also true.

False dilemma.

Is is a very real dilemma. I challenge you to come up with an argument that proves otherwise.

Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.

Harmless is a strong word especially when it comes to people lacking motivation to get a job!. (I really don't feel like getting into this one so don't bother replying to me,anyways, I won't respond)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128

He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".
 
  • #129
russ_watters said:
"Fortunate" implies luck, to me. Though I was lucky enough to be born with good parents, I've worked hard to earn the money I get. Well that's the main point of the thread: an able-bodied person should be able to do these things for themselves and when they don't, that's a personal responsibility failure. Bailing such people out reinforces their conclusion that they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Ie, if poverty is comfortable, it will perpetuate itself. Well in my opinion, they should only be allowed social benefits if they make a reasonable effort to provide for themselves and through bad luck that is no fault of their own, they can't. Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.

So I agree with you... The middle part confused me as to what you thought I meant there.
I have made my stance on this very clear at this point I hope!
And fortunate does imply luck. And you are fortunate to come from a good home as was I.
Not everyone is so fortunate and unforunately we are going to bear the burden created by say drug addicted abusive parents one way or another. Especially as the population density increases worldwide.
 
  • #130
thephysicsman said:
He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".

You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.
 
  • #131
thephysicsman said:
He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".

Do you want to give money to the poor? If so why carry this burden yourself?(please note my full argument on this problem). So Am I a Nazi now? Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?
 
  • #132
BilPrestonEsq said:
Except that you can't count on them.

Yes, you can. There have always been compassionate people, and there will always be.

would you bet the well being of yourself or the well being of your family on volunteer donations?

I would bet it on my insurance.

it is not always the case that it is because of superior quality that a product or company will excell in a free market.

Generally it is.

Also successful PR and advertisements contribute to the success of a company which again can be possible through a larger investment capitol than your competitor

PR and advertisement are very important tools of communication between producers and customers.

So if there are two competitive companies in the same market your saying that one company's profits don't translate to lower profits of the other?

I'm saying that a free market benefits everyone. Even the losing company in this case benefits a lot from the free market in all other industries. Of course, the ideal thing would be if the government granted you a monopoly in your industry, while you were allowed to enjoy the fruits of the free market in all the other industries, but that's just a pipedream.

Taking the money out of taxes is a guarantee that those in need will receive what they need to survive.

No, it's not. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Moreover, can you guarantee that the majority of the voters will always vote for these programs? No, you cannot. This is another reason why the voluntary solution is better. In a voluntary system, you only have to rely on a very few people wanting to help you. In a majority dictatorship, you have to rely on 150 million Americans wanting to help you.

WhoWee said:
You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.

Well, you can't have your cake and eat is too. If you want to force people at a gunpoint to give away their money, then you're in that camp.
 
Last edited:
  • #133
BilPrestonEsq said:
Do you want to give money to the poor? If so why carry this burden yourself?(please note my full argument on this problem). So Am I a Nazi now? Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?

I do donate money, but my charity is not unconditional. I set certain requirements. I do not for instance hand out money to people who are responsible for their own misery (like the people in Haiti).
 
  • #134
Physicsman I do want you to understand that I wish things could work the way you say they will or do. I wish that everyone could be 'good' and that people will take care of each other and that the 'free market' would only improve the quality and efficiency of our lives in it's evolution. It is simply not the case. It is idealistic. My views on this matter are taken from my observations of our current 'free market' system and from my observations of evolution, "survival of the fittest". What makes humans different. You think we as humans are so civilized by nature?
 
  • #135
BilPrestonEsq said:
Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?

No, I don't listen to that hypocrite.
 
  • #136
BilPrestonEsq said:
Physicsman I do want you to understand that I wish things could work the way you say they will or do. I wish that everyone could be 'good' and that people will take care of each other and that the 'free market' would only improve the quality and efficiency of our lives in it's evolution. It is simply not the case.

Can you PROVE this? In a civilized society, the burden of proof lies on those who advocate violence, not on those who advocate peaceful and voluntary solutions. It's a good rule of thumb to always ask yourself this question before you advocate force: "Would I be able to prove in court that violence is necessary as a last resort in this case?"
 
  • #137
Can I prove that all people aren't good?!? Can I prove that the free market doesn't just provide an improvement in the quality and efficiency of our lives?!? Just open your eyes.
Yeah, I think I am officially done wasting my time. I want to respond to your last round of one liners but really what is the point?
 
  • #138
BilPrestonEsq said:
Can I prove that all people aren't good?!?

In a free society you don't have to rely on all people, but just a very few. In a majority dictatorship, on the other hand, you have to rely on 150 million Americans wanting to help you. It's not hard to prove which system is more vulnerable.

History teaches us that the free market system is the only effective way to combat poverty. And this is BEFORE private charity is added to the equation. Every country that has addopted capitalism (that is, countries with sound money, private property, free trade, low taxes and little regulation of business) has become prosperous. This is no coincidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #139
The OP asked this question:

Has poverty become too comfortable in the US. Is there adequate incentive for individuals to escape the gravity of benefits?

Regardless of how the benefits are produced - what are the incentives for a poor person to shed the benefits and establish financial independence?
 
  • #140
A right to economic goods entails a duty for others to supply those goods. This is a form of slavery.
 
  • #141
thephysicsman said:
A right to economic goods entails a duty for others to supply those goods. This is a form of slavery.

Again, regardless of how the benefits are provided - what is the acceptable minimum or maximum level of assistance?
 
  • #142
Another perspective - is anyone actually "entitled" to cradle to grave benefits?
 
  • #143
WhoWee said:
Again, regardless of how the benefits are provided - what is the acceptable minimum or maximum level of assistance?

Every level of assistance is acceptable, as long as it is voluntary. Forced assistance (sounds like an oxymoron in my ears) is never acceptable. Why? Because economic goods (education, homes, jobs, health care, etc.) do not exist in the state of nature. They require effort and creativity to produce. Whenever someone asserts a right to an economic good, the question is: At whose expense? In effect,this person asserts a right to the products of the work of others. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave.
 
  • #144
thephysicsman said:
What do you mean?
I mean exactly what I say.
 
  • #145
WhoWee said:
You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.
I suppose there is a point of view that holds that any government control/coercion is on a slippery-slope toward fascism. [shrug]
 
  • #146
suppose there is a point of view that holds that any government control/coercion is on a slippery-slope toward fascism.

Which it is. Violence begets violence. If you help legitimizing a system (wrongly called "democracy") where a majority can grab money from the minorities, then do not be surprised if these minorities plot together to grab back some of what they've lost. If you support a system based on the principle "everybody must join, nobody is allowed to escape", then do not be surprised if one day you suddenly have to flee the country or end up in a work camp unable to escape. If you are a fan of a system that punishes productivity, then do not be surprised if the productive ones conclude that existing as slaves for others is unbearable, and run away leaving the parasites helpless on their own. The downfall of civilization is the logical conclusion of a political system based on the initiation of force against innocent and productive people.

So my advice is to choose your actions carefully, for what you do to others tend to be the prevailing principle in society if enough people do it, and then they will do exactly the same to you. Therefore, choose your policies carefully, and do not pretend that you can avoid their consequences.
 
  • #147
russ_watters said:
I suppose there is a point of view that holds that any government control/coercion is on a slippery-slope toward fascism. [shrug]

Well, considering (earlier in the thread) he thought I was promoting socialism - a little slippery-slope facism under your description isn't so bad(?):smile:
 
  • #148
Yes, I've written it down in my journal (caveat: I don't have a journal): Today I was called a socialist and fascist at the same time!

To make matters worse, I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism! I don't know what's real anymore!
 
  • #149
russ_watters said:
Yes, I've written it down in my journal (caveat: I don't have a journal): Today I was called a socialist and fascist at the same time!

To make matters worse, I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism! I don't know what's real anymore!

Don't feel bad - the media is confusing Obama with Reagan.:rolleyes:
 
  • #150
Back on topic - I've been trying to find a link (for a few days now) to statistics for length of time spent on the various welfare and HUD programs. If anyone knows where to find such an analysis - it could further this topic.