Relative poverty

[The Bacon Guy]

We're often told in the news that increasing numbers of our country's children are living in poverty. This naturally provokes a strong emotional response and often the creation of more government spending programs. But what do they mean when they tell us that these children are living in poverty? What they generally mean is not that children are living in absolute poverty (deprivation of things essential for survival and wellbeing), but that they are living in "relative poverty".

Call me unsympathetic, but only having one car and not being able to afford a holiday in Spain every year is NOT poverty. It's an insult to those who are truly in poverty to suggest that it is. What I find really absurd about this is that If you have two people, give twenty dollars to one, and ten dollars to the other, the latter is now classed as impoverished, despite the fact that he now has more then he originally did. Utterly ridiculous.

It's time people were honest, time they stopped dressing up socialism as humanitarianism, and time we dropped this abuse of the word poverty.

[Milton Bradley]

I agree.


It is clear that there is a big push towards socialism on many fronts. Many PR campaigns exist in this country, but the ones that really get under my skin are the pro-family agenda commercials. They always portray themselves as the voice being left out, when clearly their voices dominate the public airwaves. It's also always portrayed as an entitlement, therefore there is nothing to debate, just hand over the cash.

[brien]

Well stated BG. The Socialists must generate a sympathetic and highly emotional charge in the political air in order to elicit suppport from voters. This is why the the Democrats in the US commonly and frequently use children to evoke an emotional response from the average middle class person. Pelosi is wrapped in children whenever she can get the opportunity in front of the camera. It is shameful and the oldest poltical trick in the book. Afterall, it is all about the children now isn't it?:rolleyes:

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: brien This is why the the Democrats in the US commonly and frequently use children to evoke an emotional response from the average middle class person. Pelosi is wrapped in children whenever she can get the opportunity in front of the camera. It is shameful and the oldest poltical trick in the book. Afterall, it is all about the children now isn't it?:rolleyes:

Give me a break, the Democrats? How about the two major parties do it pretty much equally? Just look at any Republican-sponsored legislation aimed at "getting tough" on crime...:rolleyes:

[Chuckles]

This reminds me of an episode of American Idol I was watching (don't ask why, long story) last year where there were two charities going on. One was raising money to give mosquito nets and food to starving Malaria-infected African children. The other was raising money to help New Orleans children “recover emotionally" from Katrina with psychiatric help (2 years later). I thought the juxtaposition was amusing.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chuckles This reminds me of an episode of American Idol I was watching (don't ask why, long story) last year where there were two charities going on. One was raising money to give mosquito nets and food to starving Malaria-infected African children. The other was raising money to help New Orleans children “recover emotionally" from Katrina with psychiatric help (2 years later). I thought the juxtaposition was amusing.

Well ironically the New Orleans children were probably helped more. Charities seeking to end malaria should be buying DDT, not silly nets.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy We're often told in the news that increasing numbers of our country's children are living in poverty. This naturally provokes a strong emotional response and often the creation of more government spending programs. But what do they mean when they tell us that these children are living in poverty? What they generally mean is not that children are living in absolute poverty (deprivation of things essential for survival and wellbeing), but that they are living in "relative poverty". Call me unsympathetic, but only having one car and not being able to afford a holiday in Spain every year is NOT poverty. It's an insult to those who are truly in poverty to suggest that it is. What I find really absurd about this is that If you have two people, give twenty dollars to one, and ten dollars to the other, the latter is now classed as impoverished, despite the fact that he now has more then he originally did. Utterly ridiculous. It's time people were honest, time they stopped dressing up socialism as humanitarianism, and time we dropped this abuse of the word poverty.

I actually agree with you on this. How would you define poverty? For example, take a measurement on how the world lives, and designated the 25% lowest as "poverty" in order to gain a true assessment of the word "poverty"?

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Give me a break, the Democrats? How about the two major parties do it pretty much equally? Just look at any Republican-sponsored legislation aimed at "getting tough" on crime...:rolleyes:

I tend to disagree. I see this "bleeding heart", more taxes, bigger government, socialism from the Dems more.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Chuckles This reminds me of an episode of American Idol I was watching (don't ask why, long story)

Do you need a ride to Reality Show Anonymous? I go there for Survivor.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sweet Katie I tend to disagree. I see this "bleeding heart", more taxes, bigger government, socialism from the Dems more.

LOL... then you haven't been paying attention.

ABC News: Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity

Myth: Republicans Shrink the Government.

"For more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government."

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Sweet K I actually agree with you on this. How would you define poverty? For example, take a measurement on how the world lives, and designated the 25% lowest as "poverty" in order to gain a true assessment of the word "poverty"?

That would still be a relative measurement. By that measurement, people with two cars, a six figure salary and a mansion could be classed as impoverished, or people living in hovels with no clean water could be classed as well-off, depending on the state of the world.

I'd say if you have food, shelter and access to healthcare, you ain't in poverty. Poverty classification should be based on essential survival needs; not on a "Keeping up with the Joneses" mentality.

[grandpa]

A good way to assess poverty is looking at downward trends. For example:

American dream a nightmare for many blacks - Yahoo! News UK

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Black Americans are failing to climb the social ladder, while a worrying number born into the middle classes are now actually poorer than their parents, according to a study released on Tuesday. The report by Brookings Institution scholar Julia Isaacs found blacks were missing out on a cherished American dream that their children will be economically better off. "Children from middle- and upper middle-class black families experience a generational drop in income that is in sharp contrast to the traditional American expectation that each generation will do better than the one that came before it," she wrote. The study was part of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Mobility Project. Two out of three Americans who were children in 1968 grow up to have higher income than their parents, Isaacs found, but less than a third of black children born in the middle classes do better financially than their parents.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy That would still be a relative measurement. By that measurement, people with two cars, a six figure salary and a mansion could be classed as impoverished, or people living in hovels with no clean water could be classed as well-off, depending on the state of the world. I'd say if you have food, shelter and access to healthcare, you ain't in poverty. Poverty classification should be based on essential survival needs; not on a "Keeping up with the Joneses" mentality.

After making the original post, I thought about it some more and came to a similar conclusion. If you have food, clothing, and shelter, you aren't poor.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: grandpa A good way to assess poverty is looking at downward trends. For example: American dream a nightmare for many blacks - Yahoo! News UK

Why do you theorize thisto be? Society or culture?

[brien]

Give me a break, the Democrats? How about the two major parties do it pretty much equally? Just look at any Republican-sponsored legislation aimed at "getting tough" on crime

Well I didn't mean to exclude the Republicans...It is recently with the Democrat majority in both houses that I have seen them wrap themselves with children.

So Tivo, please give me a break. My exclusion was not by any means an approval of Republican activity in the past. I merely didn't mention it. Now we have, thank you.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sweet Katie Why do you theorize this to be? Society or culture?

It's a matter of disparity with the larger society, I think. If you look at any authoritarian system, it seems to not only exaggerate inequality, but require it. We can see this happen pretty much on a daily basis.

Grandpa h.