The debt ceiling talks fell apart on Friday as President Obama insisted on $400 billion in new taxes to pay for more government spending. Imagine if he didn’t have to spend those $400 billion over the next decade.
Is it possible that there is $400 billion of waste in the budget somewhere? Where might that be? How about amongst the impoverished?
What do most Americans think of when they think of the word poverty? Homeless is likely at the top of the list. Lack of adequate or any food is probably not far behind. Not enough money to have heat in the winter might be another. Lack of medical care. There are no doubt others, but those likely the things most Americans think of when they think of the poor. And that’s not by accident.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 30 million Americans are living in poverty. That number has remained largely stable for decades. When the nightly news reports that fact and couples it with pictures of people sleeping on grates around the National Mall or a woman and her children huddled in a homeless shelter, most people with a heart feel like there must be a problem if such poverty can exist within the borders of the richest country on the planet? Unfortunately however that is base manipulation.
The Heritage Foundation recently reviewed a variety of government data and found a picture much different than what the left would like you to believe. They reviewed data from the Census Bureau, the agency that defines how many people are living in poverty, and the Department of Energy, that produces a survey looking at what amenities people have. Looking at the poor through DOE data paints a slightly different picture than what the media paints with Census Bureau data.
According to DOE data, 99.6% of poor households have a refrigerator, 97.7% have at least one TV, 97.7% have a stove & oven, 81% have a microwave, 78% have air conditioning (vs 84% for the general population) 64% have a DVD player, 63% have cable or satellite, 54% have a cell phone (vs 76%) 29% have a video game system (such as Xxox or Wii) (vs. 31%). Forty-three percent of all poor households own their own homes and the average poor American has 16% more living space per capita than the average person living in France, Germany, the UK or Japan. While households with such amenities may be considered poor, they can hardly be considered to be living in poverty in the clearest sense of the word.
The goal here is not to diminish the notion of poverty in America. Indeed there certainly exists poverty in the true sense of the word: According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development a person classified as living in poverty had a 1 in 25 chance of spending at least one night in a homeless shelter during 2009 vs. 1 in 195 for the average American. And there really are families that end up in homeless shelters with no other place to go. At the end of the day, statistics are statistics but life is life. If you are one of the people who are living in a homeless shelter or on the street or hasn’t had anything to eat or can’t find a safe bathroom, it doesn’t matter what the average square footage a European gets by with is. What matters to you is what is going on at that exact moment.
And that’s where the problem as defined by progressives and Democrats comes in. By defining poverty so broadly they do a disservice to the truly poor. How? By perpetuating programs that send resources to those do not need them. Every time a taxpayer stands in line at the grocery store and watches a welfare recipient talk on her cell phone and pay cash for cigarettes and lottery tickets while using food stamps to pay for food it diminishes support for all government programs. It also keeps dollars from those programs which target the truly needy.
Rather than having programs that could help those with significant problems, we have welfare programs that simply perpetuate more welfare. Between 1965 & 2008 the United States spent $15.9 Trillion in its War on Poverty (vs $6.4 on all real wars) yet 10% of the population is considered to be living in poverty today.
Despite the War on Poverty’s abject failure, it goes on. And here’s where it hurts. Even now amidst the toughest economic environment in half a century, with urban unemployment in the double digits, when the government has to borrow a trillion dollars to pay its bills President Obama and the Democrats continue to play politics. When the GOP seeks to reduce government by cutting wasteful programs, the left accuses them of wanting to cut the safety net out from under America’s most vulnerable. That’s John Edwards lie of Two America’s all over again, and it’s still a lie.
The DOE’s numbers clearly demonstrate that there is a distinct difference between those considered poor and those in need of real help. While the most effective strategy would most certainly be to eliminate all government welfare programs and allow private charities to take over, that is unlikely to get by a donkey led Senate or the progressive in the White House. More realistically, by painting an accurate picture of poverty in the country, Uncle Sam could more precisely tailor programs to help the truly needy. Doing so would help those in need by being more effective, it might help restore the American taxpayer’s opinion of government in general and would save hundreds of billions of dollars just at the time when America finds itself broke.
See author page
Would you like to see REAL poverty?
(Probably not.)
Muslim countries discriminate against Christians in all things; education, healthcare, JOBS and so on.
What is life like for Christians in Egypt?
Photo essay here.
Astonishing!
Add to this, the Egyptian government (Muslims) used the Swine Flu as an excuse to kill off all of these Christians’ pigs that were used to eat the organic portion of this garbage.
VINCE, hi,
good post, you are right about the definition of poor,
when I started to check the blogs , I found one that where telling that some veterans coming from the wars where living on the street, they had no place to go, he was taking some to his place but had limits
and was making a plea to help them, some had a problem with alcohol, and some had a shell shock problem but refuse to get medical help and are dump by their family,
the story I found so sad, to have the braves come back after a living hell and be on the street in their own COUNTRY,
THAT TO ME IS THE REAL WORD OF POOR
BYE
The naked truth of poverty is far different from poverty as a political ploy to gain power and wealth.
This was a well written essay on a subject that needs to be exposed.
The Democrat Party is so invested in representing the poor and disadvantaged as a demographic, they would never consider actually helping people overcome poverty.
In all fairness to us poor persons:
Most of that crap you list is relatively cheap junk. I mean, DVD players? Cell phones? Not to downplay our level of lifestyle, but you can practically get that stuff out of vending machines. Most of the rest you can buy at Goodwill. You can still have all that crap— household appliances, and TV sets, and all– and still be in desperate straits. You think that junk makes us less poor? Try selling any of it to make rent. You couldn’t get most people to pay for their own gas to haul it away!
The American poor can easily accumulate all sorts of JUNK that might be a status symbol of wealth in, I dunno, Borneo… but it doesn’t pay the rent or feed the kids, it’s just crap that’s virtually free in our throwaway society, and lasts FOREVER. But when we need help, apparently we’re supposed to see a fifty dollar purchase made five years ago as proof that we’re not really needy. Why? Because it’s still sitting in our living room someplace. You’re unemployed, you’re hungry, you go and ask for food stamps– the first thing they ask is if you have a CAR, and count it towards your “financial status.” What am I supposed to do with it, EAT it? Yes I own my trailer, surprise, it’s a net EXPENSE every day of the week, it’s older than I am and in about the same shape (sagging at the corners, bottom falling out…) It needs hundreds of dollars in repair… but in some people’s ledgers that means I “have too much.”
Internet access? hey, $30-40 a month, I must be ROLLING in it! Never mind that it’s a vital necessity as the internet is how I make what scratch I do bring in… And by the way, I’m taking it up the rear on taxes, too.
Am I destitute? Am I “poor,” in the theatrically dramatic fashion described above? No.
But poor doesn’t always mean gutter-crawling homeless. It can mean being so tight between what you scratch in, and what you pay out, that there’s nothing left over to patch up what you have… or to make any headway for the future.
I blame noone for my circumstances but myself. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. I dug my own grave, and made my own bed. But I’m a little tired of people who have things licked telling me I’m not “poor” when I’m in circumstances they wouldn’t tolerate for a minute.
The more poor people, Federal employees, and illegals you have, the more votes you get if you can convince them that you will guarantee them their money and maybe even a little more. Another ripoff is foreign aid. Many years 60 Minutes or 20/20 did a story about a factory the USA paid for in another country. I don’t remember the country. It was built and ready to be used, except that where it was built there wasn’t any electricity. That was way back in the ancient times when the propaganda media actually reported stuff they should be reporting on.
The dictator was happy because he got a cut of the money, the American contractor who built it was happy because he got a cut of the money, the workers in that country were happy beccause they got a cut of the money, and the politicians were happy because the contractor had more money coming in so that he could donate more to the politicians. EVERYBODY WINS.
We don’t have two political parties in the USA any more. We have a shark feeding frenzy with all of the sharks taking as big a bite as they can from the tax payer.
RHJunior, you’re good at expressing yourself, welcome to the debates here,
and you’re not targeted in the debate here, the target is for those who abuse the systhem, and I’m sure you can name quite a lot of them, and also offer the GOVERNMENT MANY IDEAS TO CORRECT THEIR
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS ON OVER SPENDING THE TAXPAYER MONEY AND OVER SERVICING THE THE AGENTCIES WHERE MANY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANY ADVANCE IN THE HELP THEY PRETEND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE REAL POOR IN THIS COUNTRY.
THE PRIVATE CHARITY COULD DO A BETTER JOB ANYTIME BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS GENUINE
take care, bye
SMORGASBORD HI, YES MANY THINK THE HELP THEY GET COME FROM THE PARTY IN POWER, AND THEY ARE TOLD THOSE LIES ALL THE TIME
THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SOME POVERTY IN EVERY WALK OF SOCIETY, SOME VERY SMART,
AND SOME IGNORANT OF WHERE IT COME FROM ASIDE FROM THE AGENCY’S PROMOTING THE PARTY,
THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY WILL GET THE HELP THEY NEED BY ANY OTHER PARTY WHO WILL BRING A NEW PRESIDENT AND A NEW GOVERNMENT MORE BALANCE TO RESTRAIN SPENDING SO THIS SCARE THE POOR ARE HAVING NOW WONT BE REPEATED AGAIN IN THE FUTURE,
AFTER THIS IS CORRECTED BY ELECTING THE TRULY CAPABLE LEADER , WITH CONSERVATIVES IDEOLOGY THAT WORK FOR THIS SUPER NATION WHERE THE CONSTITUTION ,
WHICH WORKED FOR CENTURYS, HAS BEEN TRASH BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP TO BRING AMERICAN INTO CHAOS OF DESTRUCTION.
do we know the number of the population of AMERICANS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY?
NOT COUNTING THE ILLEGALS ON THIS QUESTION,
but how much is the number of illegals as now?
@frienship”, where are you, I received your comment from FLOPPING ACES IN MY SITE, BUT CAME TO HERE TO ANSWER AND YOU’RE NOT HERE.
My daughter lived in Djuboti (navy base) for a year and traveled extensively through Kenya. She commented that in the US, people living in poverty have air conditioning, food, health care, cell phones, computers, etc.
In Dijuboti, the poor don’t even have walls or roofs.
Let’s get a grip, here. The problem with a lot of our programs is that people are able to use the system with impunity. We’ve been overly generous to some and cheap to others. It’s time for people on food stamps to eat their peas, and not the T-bone steaks and shrimp.
The best way to cut down on the excesses of some of the programs is to stop allowing the programs to pay for luxuries. I have no problem paying for apples, hamburger, tuna fish, bread, staples and peas. But I do have problems paying for higher end food. If the food stamps didn’t allow the luxuries, I wonder how many people would still want them.
Not sure if the food stamps are regulated by the feds or if they are regulated by states.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #7
The republicans ain’t much help in getting this country back on track. That is why I say we have republicrats in congress and not republicans and democrats. This is also one reason I don’t belong to ANY political party.
@Helene: #9
Welfare is only to create more votes. The more people on welfare the more votes politicians can get if they promise them more money.
One community did it the right way. I don’t remember where it was. When a person came into the unemployment office for help, they would have to pick a job on the list. Enough of the people who were getting unemployment payments figured that if they have to WORK for the money they were going to get a better job and did. The welfare workers saw that they could loose their jobs if enough people got off of welfare and they sued and won. The court ruled that you can’t make them WORK for their money.
We need to renew this kind of welfare with the exception that if the welfare workers get all of the recipients off of welfare, the workeres can sit at home and draw their checks, with the exception that they would have to be available if newly unemployed show up and they would be switched to other areas if they are open.
Just to clarify a point, no, I am not on foodstamps— I went on them briefly YEARS ago, and got off them just as quickly. I’ve since made inquiries into various forms of government assistance, to see what my options were… but being white, male, and a legal citizen, I apparently don’t qualify for any of the “helping hands” that are supposedly everywhere in the government system. I’m too “rich.”
And Yes, I know there are dirt-poor people all over the world. I just humbly request that the people who probably spend more on trivial luxuries in a week than I earn in a month stop telling me how much worse somebody else somewhere has it than me. Your brilliant insight into that little fact doesn’t do a thing for either them OR me.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 30 million Americans are living in poverty. That number has remained largely stable for decades.
The population of the country has almost doubled since the 1960 (179,373,000) to 2010 (308,745,000) so as a percentage, poverty as it is broadly defined is actually dropping IF the total number has stayed at around 30 million in any decade. One can honestly debate whether or not if any government program was successful in keeping that number from rising to 60 million. The question really is have the goal posts been moved in defining poverty in 1960 vs 2010? Would in 1960 most of people who are considered poor today be counted as poor back then. I would say no. So in that case again, we can honestly debate whether government programs reduced that percentage OR whether ecomonic opportunity increased from 1960 to 2010 to explain that drop. But the fact remains, the poverty rate as a percentage of the population has dropped.
A poor person in my mind is one who doesn’t have a residence, i.e. homeless because they don’t have sufficient regular income to pay for rent, and buy enough groceries of sufficient caloric intake to maintain weight. That’s real poverty.
Living in a camping trailer in a park is not necessarily poor, BUT should be considered poor as this is not the living circumstance we expect for a successful self sufficient person. A person is not homeless if they have a roof over their heads which in some manner they can afford. e.g. a trailer in an RV park. Why? Because they can’t be defined as one of “no fixed address” if they can receive mail from the Post Office on a regular basis.
I am making a distinction between being poor (a relative term) versus poverty a term of deprivation. Most of us are poor compared to Bill Gates, a billionaire, but that does not entitle us to a portion of his income. On the other hand, if I’m homeless and starving, Bill Gates has a moral duty to his fellow countrymen and should do something, that is the attitude most Americans take. Just because I don’t drive a car or live in my mom’s basement doesn’t entitle me to a portion of anyone’s charity or governnment hand out because charity is being rendered, i.e. by my mom in this example. You are certainly not entitled to double dip.
Good article, Vince. Thanks.
Just a note regarding the Census figures. Their “annual income” numbers DO NOT include government assistance of any kind. WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc… Also, remember that income is not accumulated wealth. For example, it’s quite easy to live well on an income “below the poverty line” if your home is paid-for and you have no debts. IOW, one can be wealthy, but still considered “poor” by the Census bureau.
Anyone read Angela’s Ashes? It’s about a kid growing up in jaw-dropping poverty in Ireland. The family even had to dismantle the interior walls of their apartment and burn them in the fireplace to keep warm one winter. Man, that’s poor.
dscott, thank’s for the info, on the whole population number of AMERICANS,
that doesn’t include the immigrants in waiting and the illegals and the the refugies statue is in it? or the prisoners?
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: That includes everyone without distinction of citizenship, green card holders, illegals. If an address exists that the Post Office can deliver mail they got counted. Even the homeless as census takers also go under bridges and RV parks. (some liberals would contend the homeless are undercounted and thus the census is too low, however, there have been plenty of studies that show they are being actually over counted IN THE PAST, maybe not now during this current economic calamity)
discott, thank you, it make it easy to understand the whole pattern of figures when we read the percentage of a part of people named in a discussion, for example they where mentioning the percentage of the rich over 200,000 dollars worth revenue they wanted to target in a tax for the rich. or the 30,000,000 poor
we can compare to the big number of the whole population and subtract from it or able to make it a fraction of the whole.
bye