Poor people in this country really have it bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let me tell you, these people do NOT have W/D in their trailers, let alone running water. They do not own TV's, Xbox's etc. My friend buys groceries out of her own pocket to help these people. This study does not make sense to me.

Does your friend do work with homeless people?
From what I hear, a dwelling has to have running water and electricity, otherwise it is not ihabitable.
In rural Africa you get people who have to get water from a well. That cannot possibly be happening in WV?

But then again, in an African country like Swaziland, gives women paid maternity leave

It's happening in Texas. Are the people in this article poor enough for you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/us/10tthealth.html

[Anonymous]

So if they bought out those items on credit and are carrying a $10K balance on their cards, then, yes, they really do have it bad.

Income is not the same as wealth.

[Anonymous]

WOW. This is my first trip to the political discussion forum. This is why the republicans can win. They can manage to convince (likely) highly educated adults, who pass by people struggling to feed themselves and their children everyday, that teh poor are not that bad off in America. Wake up people, a pp had it right, these types of distorted studies are designed to help you rationalize cutting social services instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. I never understood how anyone could think that cutting social programs was a good idea, but if you buy into crap like this, then no wonder you are able to sleep at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WOW. This is my first trip to the political discussion forum. This is why the republicans can win. They can manage to convince (likely) highly educated adults, who pass by people struggling to feed themselves and their children everyday, that teh poor are not that bad off in America. Wake up people, a pp had it right, these types of distorted studies are designed to help you rationalize cutting social services instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. I never understood how anyone could think that cutting social programs was a good idea, but if you buy into crap like this, then no wonder you are able to sleep at night.

so what is the role of social programs? what standard of living is your minimum acceptable level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WOW. This is my first trip to the political discussion forum. This is why the republicans can win. They can manage to convince (likely) highly educated adults, who pass by people struggling to feed themselves and their children everyday, that teh poor are not that bad off in America. Wake up people, a pp had it right, these types of distorted studies are designed to help you rationalize cutting social services instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. I never understood how anyone could think that cutting social programs was a good idea, but if you buy into crap like this, then no wonder you are able to sleep at night.

so what is the role of social programs? what standard of living is your minimum acceptable level?

I would need to write a proper essay, not a DCUM post to fully respond, but I will say this... in America, the truly wealthy have earned or inherited wealth that is gained on the backs of others. (we would be in a completely different place if blacks had been able to really own property even as little as two generations ago, or if minority entrepeneurs had been treated the same as whites-even today.) funding social programs requires that we all recontribute to society. Americans have a moral imperitive to take care of each other. we cannot shelter ourselves behind our double paned glass and watch people freeze outdoors and still call ourselves responsible citizens.

a minimum acceptable level would be safe, warm/cool housing, food, education and dignity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WOW. This is my first trip to the political discussion forum. This is why the republicans can win. They can manage to convince (likely) highly educated adults, who pass by people struggling to feed themselves and their children everyday, that teh poor are not that bad off in America. Wake up people, a pp had it right, these types of distorted studies are designed to help you rationalize cutting social services instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. I never understood how anyone could think that cutting social programs was a good idea, but if you buy into crap like this, then no wonder you are able to sleep at night.

so what is the role of social programs? what standard of living is your minimum acceptable level?

I would need to write a proper essay, not a DCUM post to fully respond, but I will say this... in America, the truly wealthy have earned or inherited wealth that is gained on the backs of others. (we would be in a completely different place if blacks had been able to really own property even as little as two generations ago, or if minority entrepeneurs had been treated the same as whites-even today.) funding social programs requires that we all recontribute to society. Americans have a moral imperitive to take care of each other. we cannot shelter ourselves behind our double paned glass and watch people freeze outdoors and still call ourselves responsible citizens.

a minimum acceptable level would be safe, warm/cool housing, food, education and dignity.

I totally disagree! You do NOT need an essay; you did a fine job in about six lines.

[Anonymous]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/08/half-of-us-social-pr.html

Whoops!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WOW. This is my first trip to the political discussion forum. This is why the republicans can win. They can manage to convince (likely) highly educated adults, who pass by people struggling to feed themselves and their children everyday, that teh poor are not that bad off in America. Wake up people, a pp had it right, these types of distorted studies are designed to help you rationalize cutting social services instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. I never understood how anyone could think that cutting social programs was a good idea, but if you buy into crap like this, then no wonder you are able to sleep at night.

so what is the role of social programs? what standard of living is your minimum acceptable level?

I would need to write a proper essay, not a DCUM post to fully respond, but I will say this... in America, the truly wealthy have earned or inherited wealth that is gained on the backs of others. (we would be in a completely different place if blacks had been able to really own property even as little as two generations ago, or if minority entrepeneurs had been treated the same as whites-even today.) funding social programs requires that we all recontribute to society. Americans have a moral imperitive to take care of each other. we cannot shelter ourselves behind our double paned glass and watch people freeze outdoors and still call ourselves responsible citizens.

a minimum acceptable level would be safe, warm/cool housing, food, education and dignity.

I totally disagree! You do NOT need an essay; you did a fine job in about six lines.

so we spend hundreds of billions on housing for the poor, we offer free education, and obesity is much more of a problem (thousands time more) than starvation. So what is your complaint?

[Anonymous]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/08/half-of-us-social-pr.html

Whoops!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let me tell you, these people do NOT have W/D in their trailers, let alone running water. They do not own TV's, Xbox's etc. My friend buys groceries out of her own pocket to help these people. This study does not make sense to me.

Does your friend do work with homeless people?
From what I hear, a dwelling has to have running water and electricity, otherwise it is not ihabitable.
In rural Africa you get people who have to get water from a well. That cannot possibly be happening in WV?

Are you from this country??? There is no habitability patrol. There are many, many people who live without running water and/or electricity, especially in Appalachia and the rural south. They usually own the land but can't afford the high cost to build hook ups. Oprah did a show once on an entire town without running water.

[Anonymous]

Public or government subsidized housing has to meet certain regulations.

Emergency shelter and private dwellings technically must meet code, but as the previous poster has noted, there is no one going around making checks. And old homes do not need to be brought up to code unless they are improved, which rarely happens in poor people's homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WOW. This is my first trip to the political discussion forum. This is why the republicans can win. They can manage to convince (likely) highly educated adults, who pass by people struggling to feed themselves and their children everyday, that teh poor are not that bad off in America. Wake up people, a pp had it right, these types of distorted studies are designed to help you rationalize cutting social services instead of tax cuts for the wealthy. I never understood how anyone could think that cutting social programs was a good idea, but if you buy into crap like this, then no wonder you are able to sleep at night.

so what is the role of social programs? what standard of living is your minimum acceptable level?

I would need to write a proper essay, not a DCUM post to fully respond, but I will say this... in America, the truly wealthy have earned or inherited wealth that is gained on the backs of others. (we would be in a completely different place if blacks had been able to really own property even as little as two generations ago, or if minority entrepeneurs had been treated the same as whites-even today.) funding social programs requires that we all recontribute to society. Americans have a moral imperitive to take care of each other. we cannot shelter ourselves behind our double paned glass and watch people freeze outdoors and still call ourselves responsible citizens.

a minimum acceptable level would be safe, warm/cool housing, food, education and dignity.

I totally disagree! You do NOT need an essay; you did a fine job in about six lines.

so we spend hundreds of billions on housing for the poor, we offer free education, and obesity is much more of a problem (thousands time more) than starvation. So what is your complaint?

NP Here. My problem is people who complain about problems without suppoting valid solutions. For example, Obesity is an epidemic, yet there's no push for nutritional education, preventative care, and we're doing things like eliminating recess in our schools. School lunches are full of unhealthy garbage, and as someone who is on WIC I can tell you that you're allowed to have things like Juicy Juice but are only given 6 whole dollars to buy a weeks worth of vegetables. My insurance plan would allow me a gastric bypass if my doctor deemed it necessary, but seeing a nutritionist is right out.

MY complaint is that people waste millions on broadcasting soundbites when they could be putting energy into solving this nation's problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Are you from this country??? There is no habitability patrol. There are many, many people who live without running water and/or electricity, especially in Appalachia and the rural south. They usually own the land but can't afford the high cost to build hook ups. Oprah did a show once on an entire town without running water.

A rental unit has to be legal and to be legal it has to have running water, electricity, windows etc
CPS can take your kids away if they think your home is not safe enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you from this country??? There is no habitability patrol. There are many, many people who live without running water and/or electricity, especially in Appalachia and the rural south. They usually own the land but can't afford the high cost to build hook ups. Oprah did a show once on an entire town without running water.

A rental unit has to be legal and to be legal it has to have running water, electricity, windows etc
CPS can take your kids away if they think your home is not safe enough

Out there who's gonna call CPS? Every one else lives the same way.