Americas poor

'This morning, the Census Bureau announced that a record 46.2 million, or one in seven Americans, lived in poverty last year. Although the current recession greatly increased the number of poor persons, high levels of poverty predate it.

In fact, for two decades, census officials have announced in most years that more than 35 million Americans were poor. Last year’s number was 43.5 million. But there is a wide chasm between the public’s concept of poverty and “poverty” as it is defined by the Census Bureau.

The public generally thinks of poverty as substantial material hardship such as homelessness, or malnutrition and chronic hunger. In reality, the vast majority of those identified as poor by the annual census report did not experience significant material deprivation.

In a recent Rasmussen poll, adults agreed (by a ratio of six to one) that “a family that is adequately fed and living in a house or apartment that is in good repair” is not poor. By that simple test, about 80 percent of the Census Bureau’s “poor” people would not be considered poor by their fellow Americans.

In the same Rasmussen poll, however, 73 percent said poverty was a severe problem. Why the disconnect? The answer: Public perception of poverty in the U.S. is governed by the mainstream media, which invariably depicts the Census Bureau’s tens of millions of poor people as chronically hungry and malnourished, homeless or barely hanging on in overcrowded, dilapidated housing.".............................


.................."All of this might lead a thoughtful liberal to ask: Doesn’t the higher standard of living enjoyed by most of the poor (supported by the uncounted means-tested welfare spending) suggest the welfare state is working? Have we won the War on Poverty?

The answer is a partial yes.

Not even the government can spend $900 billion per year and have no impact on living standards. But the original goal of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty was to eliminate the “causes” as well as the “symptoms” of poverty.

Johnson said he sought to make the poor self-sufficient and prosperous, and to reduce dependence on government. LBJ promised to shrink, not expand, the welfare state. In helping the poor, he said, his goal was to “make taxpayers out of taxeaters.”

After $17 trillion spent on the War on Poverty, Johnson’s goal is further off than ever."


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... ert-rector

as the Census Bureau makes clear, there is no single "best" definition of poverty.

There are absolute poverty measures, and relative poverty measures.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/

America, where the poor suffer from obesity.

having seen truly poor (Egypt, Yemen, Bangladesh, and Pakistan), I'd have to say that I cringe when I hear the term "America's impoverished."

There is some genuine poverty in the country (near me in the Navajo Nation, or parts of Appalacia, for example) --- but for the most part, poverty is not a death sentence in the USA.

Poor upward mobility for the poor is the real problem. Stuck in a means-tested rut with no incentive to move up.

I work with poor people all the time. Are they as destitute as those in India? Obviously not. Do they have trouble getting healthy nutritious food for their kids and themselves? Absolutely. A diet of Kraft dinner, bean and tortillias, white bread, potatoes and cheese, while inexpensive will lead to obesity and health problems. Eating fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and lean meats is pricey and time consuming. The moms working two and three jobs don't have the time or resources to bake their own bread or shop at Costco in bulk. It saddens me the way we treat the disadvantaged in America. It makes us more comfortable if we blame them. We imagine them as lazy and willfully ignorant. That is not what I see when I work at the food bank. Remember, Jesus teaches us that as we treat the least of these is how we treat him. We are not doing well at all.

chickaree wrote: I work with poor people all the time. Are they as destitute as those in India? Obviously not. Do they have trouble getting healthy nutritious food for their kids and themselves? Absolutely. A diet of Kraft dinner, bean and tortillias, white bread, potatoes and cheese, while inexpensive will lead to obesity and health problems. Eating fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and lean meats is pricey and time consuming. The moms working two and three jobs don't have the time or resources to bake their own bread or shop at Costco in bulk. It saddens me the way we treat the disadvantaged in America. It makes us more comfortable if we blame them. We imagine them as lazy and willfully ignorant. That is not what I see when I work at the food bank. Remember, Jesus teaches us that as we treat the least of these is how we treat him. We are not doing well at all.

Such BS. Fresh produce is more expensive? Hardly. People eat crap food because they want to!
Compare the prices of the fresh food on the ends of the market with the processed stuff in the middle.

And don't have time to shop for healthy food? More BS. Takes just as much time to buy bags of potato chips and tortillas as lean vegtables and healthy fruit.

Fresh produce, meats, healthy multi grain breads, are most definitely more expensive than processed foods.....canned veggies are cheaper than fresh or frozen. Healthy cereals without added sugar cost more. But isn't it fun to blame the victims so you can absolve yourself of any responsibility to be charitable toward those less fortunate......

Another factor with the urban poor are food deserts. There is a shortage of grocery stores offering affordable fresh produce and other healthy food choices in inner urban areas.

Unintended consequences? Wal-mart which offers inexpensive produce at their markets tried to enter a urban Denver neighborhood but were voted out because the yuppies in the area preferred to have expensive politically correct stores like Trader Vic's.