# Should Poverty Be Comfortable?

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?
I'll presume by wealfare you mean money given to the porest of poor. Looking here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...=1&expand=4047414650&expandC=&units=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?

I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.
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.

Based on World Bank figures which are used for official global poverty statistics, the number of people living below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day fell from 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion between 1990 and 2005."[/I] 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 Gold Member 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).

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

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2005/Files/JSM2005-000618.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
Gold Member
i am an individule on social security and get under 800 a month, Which would be great if i had no bills. Mostly all of money goes on bills and I live with people, and I have to pay 1/3 of all the bills everybody else has to pay. Plus things like a car/which means gas and maintainence, cable, cellphone are not budgeted. Social programs do not give money for these things. Which I think are necessary.
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
Mentor