Say Anything Blog

$48,000+ a year and owns their own home isn’t poor.

Hell, no! They could contribute $100,000 a year to Democratic candidates!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

In America the poor—heck even many of the homeless—have and can afford to feed a pet.

Outside of America, the poor, if they had a pet, would eat it for dinner.

[Feet make good soup!]

Campaign speech for John Edwards:

There are two Americas.  One for the rich and one for the poor.  In the rich America, folks have cable or satellite television, dvd players, microwaves, dishwashers, cell phones, and can afford to own their own home.  In the other America… wait, which America is which again?  I have no more experience with US Poverty than I do with Cuban Healthcare.

What is really sad is that some Americans go without the necessities of life.  Like a cell phone with free nights and weekends and unlimited text messaging.  Texting is a right.  We need new government programs to ensure that all Americans have access to texting.  We need government programs to ensure that all poor people with pets have sufficient food, not just for themselves, but also their pets.

It just doesn’t wash.  Our poor live like kings--even before the minimum wage increase--compared to the rest of the world.  They are no more entitled to a comfortable living made possible by government than those that live in the 3rd world.

What this tells me is that the poor have too much money and most of it is subsidies from the government via earned income credit, welfare, WIC, subsidized housing, and so on.  If you are below the poverty line, you should not be able to afford a cell phone, a pet, cable tv, a car… If you can afford these things, then government should not be helping you with a damned thing. 

Basically, the only people that should receive government assistance are the disabled.  And even then, assistance should be limited.  Able bodied folks earning even minimum wage earn over $11000 per year.  That is at or above 85% of the people in the world.  Why should our poor live better than the middle class and sometime the rich of other countries?

The “let’em eat cake” theory of governance.
We know how that worked out.

The poverty line set by the Gov’t is really the base line of whether some people will work or not work.  If my social welfare system will support me in a good living without working why would I go to work?  As the poverty line is raised, so too, is the level of people who decide that working is a waste of their time--their pay is just as good or better by dropping by the social welfare office once a month.  Beats the 7AM to 5 PM rat-race anytime.

I’m poor if the leftists need to bash the Bush economy.  I’m rich if they want to raise taxes.

Why should our poor live better than the middle class and sometime the rich of other countries?

Because, due to our commitment to individual independence and a demand-based economic system, we are the wealthiest, most productive nation on Earth.  A rising tide lifts all boats.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Justin B. - Our poor live like kings--even before the minimum wage increase--compared to the rest of the world.

Correction - despite the minimum wage increase. Such things do not help the poor, nor do they help the economy.

WOOF - The “let’em eat cake” theory of governance.

And like clockwork, you’re there to give us class envy. What a fool you are.

Why should our poor live better than the middle class and sometime the rich of other countries?

I have no problem with the poorest Americans living in relative ease. I have no problem with the poorest Americans living better than medieval kings.
I have a problem with the poorest Americans living better than medieval kings and whining all the time about how bad they’ve got it, and would their fellow citizens (via the government) give them more, while not actively trying to better themselves.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof:  Indeed; beggars can’t be choosers.  The political class seems to have forgotten that.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I have no problem with the poorest Americans living in relative ease.

I should have said: I have no problem with the majority of poorest Americans living in relative ease.
There are pockets of abject poverty in this country. They are the exception. Color TV and cable are NOT part of their livestyle!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof: Most of the homeless I have talked to think they are “smarter than the average bear” because they don’t have to pay rent.  For them, poverty is a choice.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

For them, poverty is a choice.

I agree. When I think of pockets of abject poverty , I think more in terms of Appalachia. (Not that those people are complaining!)

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

I have no problem with the poorest Americans living in relative ease. I have no problem with the poorest Americans living better than medieval kings.

Perhaps I should have stated this better:

Why should our poor live better than the middle class and sometime the rich of other countries?

My intention was:

Why should our poor be entitled to live better than the middle class of other countries [and have that subsidized by the government]?

This article points out a couple major issues with the poverty calculations:

Many poor families receive income in-kind – meaning they receive goods or services directly from the government instead of cash. These are clearly valuable. For example, poor households might receive food stamps, Medicaid health insurance, Medicare (if they are elderly), subsidized housing, energy assistance, and subsidized childcare.  Because they receive these goods in-kind, these households do not need to use their own cash to purchase them.

The official poverty count ignores in-kind income. Schiller’s Table 3.5 shows that the poverty rate in 2001 would fall from 11.3% to 8.6% if in-kind transfers and tax credits were included. About 8 million people would be taken out of poverty.  Not only is the poverty level affected by in-kind income, but poverty trends as well. In-kind income, particularly health insurance subsidies, have grown tremendously over the past forty years. In 2001, in-kind income accounted for 75% of welfare benefits, up from 55% in 1968.  At the same time, it is difficult to value many in-kind transfers. The value of health insurance, for example, depends on health status.

People may lie to survey takers about their income, especially if they believe that their welfare benefits or taxes might be affected, or if their incomes come from illegal sources.

Some estimates suggest that poor families spend twice as much income as they report receiving, and the gap between spending and reported income as widened over time. Of course, access to credit or changing wealth could explain this too.  This could help reconcile consumption patterns with income patterns.

The left doesn’t tell you:

Many spells of poverty are fairly short. There is no obvious reason why income over the course of one year is the appropriate measure. Why not one month? Or five years?  Three out of five families that are in poverty in one year are out of poverty the next year. Only one in ten families stays in poverty for five years or more.

Explains a lot about the statistics that Rob is quoting.

Let them eat cake there Woof.  Let them eat cake.

Why should our poor be entitled to live better than the middle class of other countries [and have that subsidized by the government]?

The simple answer is that there is enough to go around, and we can afford it.  Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s OK, or the best way to go, but it is true.  I see a long term problem with subsidizing low productivity, but so far, we are still prospering.
Personally, I think we would be even more prosperous if we encouraged productivity above comfort, but the lefties already hate us enough just for being successful.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

People may lie to survey takers about their income, especially if they believe that their welfare benefits or taxes might be affected, or if their incomes come from illegal sources.

Or even “under the table” payments. Not illegal per se, unless they are not reported for tax purposes.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

The simple answer is that there is enough to go around, and we can afford it.  Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s OK, or the best way to go, but it is true.

Is there enough to go around for the entire world?  We have excess wealth and a high standard of living.  I personally believe that our internal domestic poverty conditions are a minor issue when compared to worldwide poverty.  And it is the worldwide poverty that needs to be dealt with.

The problem we have is just like LBJ’s war on poverty and Great Society, we have given trillions of dollars to the developing world so that their leaders can squander it.  It is the same thing with subsidizing the impoverished here.  We deal with the problems simply by creating jobs and sustaining the economy.  In order to provide food stamps and subsidized we have to raise taxes to pay for the them.  The more we fight poverty, the more we penalize those that are not in poverty and reward those that CHOOSE to be.  And it is a choice.  Maybe not temporary poverty that is transient while people find a new job, etc., but the long term poverty that you see in many inner cities. 

I much prefer economic development grants or tax breaks to attract new industry and create jobs in these underserved areas (though I am not a huge fan of manipulating the labor markets this way either) to handing out freebies to the poor.

Is there enough to go around for the entire world? Not the subject here; we are talking about poverty in the US. We have excess wealth and a high standard of living. I always laugh at such constructions as “excess wealth”, “extra money” and “spare change”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

We have excess wealth and a high standard of living. I always laugh at such constructions as “excess wealth”, “extra money” and “spare change”.

Poverty being a relative term, we are only comparing domestic poverty to domestic norms.  We have no people in poverty when compared to any objective measure of worldwide poverty. 

The simple answer is that there is enough to go around, and we can afford it.

When I was finishing my degree at ASU, we talked about US excesses--food excess, clothing excess, etc.  Hell, even cell phones and electronics that are no longer desired domestically. 

This is an interesting article about Goodwill and what they actually do with many of their donations:

Today Goodwill Industries also funds its programs through the resale of surplus textiles. Donated clothing and linens that do not sell in Goodwill retail stores are sold to brokers or buyers who typically recycle or resell the items in Third World countries.

With tens of thousands of surplus textiles continually being donated to local Goodwill agencies throughout the United States, many locations have turned to a unique packaging solution — one found more readily in industrial settings than at nonprofit community support centers. Today, a great number of Goodwill branches are using large, powerful, industrial balers to compact hundreds of textile items at a time. To help achieve this monumental task, many of these Goodwill locations have turned to one of the leading manufacturers of industrial balers — American Baler Company, of Bellevue, Ohio…

Goodwill Industries—Suncoast, headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, presently uses a baler from American Baler Company to produce between 22-40 bales during an 8-14-hour day. That’s over 10,000 bales annually with an average bale weight of about 1100 pounds.

According to Kym Bandy, director of acquisitions and allocations for Goodwill-Suncoast, “Buyers and brokers typically contact us looking for baled textiles. Goodwill Industries International also publishes a list of current salvage buyers active in the Goodwill system.” Bandy adds, “Nationally, pricing for the last few years has been fairly stable, between $.06-$.11 per pound. Goodwill operations closer to seaports sometimes receive higher prices because the buyer has reduced shipping costs.”

Bandy projects Goodwill-Suncoast’s revenue from this side of the operation to reach $400-500,000 for 2004.

You can’t not call this excess wealth.  Our poor are so well clothed that even used clothing stores cannot sell the majority of the clothes people donate, so they are baled and shipped to Africa or Asia.  Our farmers produce so much food that they are paid to not produce it and our massive excess food production is shipped to Asia and Africa.

When our poor often won’t wear used clothing, we don’t have any poor.  And by worldwide standards, we have none.  Our poor are wealthy.

When I was finishing my degree at ASU, we talked about US excesses--food excess, clothing excess, etc. Hell, even cell phones and electronics that are no longer desired domestically.

So, because you talked about it at ASU, that makes it true?  It’s your opinion, nothing more.
You are falling into the leftie trap of making judgments about what other people choose to do in a society based on individual independence.  This is not a collectivist country.  You’re on a slippery slope.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert,

We produce an excess of food.  We produce and excess of other items.  We export most of our “garbage” to the third world.  An entire market exists for selling US garbage such as cell phones, computers, clothing, appliances, TVs, etc. to the third world.

Are you not getting the fact that we export these items that we no longer want because we can afford newer and better cell phones or computers or clothing or TV’s?  That there are actual commodities markets that trade in US excess goods?  Are you denying that fact or are you asking me to prove it to you or are you just disputing my definition of excess or merely challenging the education I received at ASU?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2006-08-20-cellphone-recycling_x.htm

DEXTER, Mich. — With the number of cellphones in use worldwide hitting 2 billion and rising, recycled phones are playing a crucial role in the spread of wireless communications across the developing world, where land lines can be costly or unavailable.
The odds are good that a refurbished cellphone in the pocket of a user in Bolivia, Jamaica, Kenya, Ukraine or Yemen originated with ReCellular. Based in small-town Michigan, ReCellular gets 75,000 used phones a week — most collected in charity fundraisers — and refurbishes them for sale around the world.

ReCellular has more than half the U.S. phone recycling business. Executives say they are doing well for themselves as well as for the March of Dimes and other national charities that benefit from the company’s purchase of donated phones.

“The fact that you can combine a business — a profitable business — with a useful service and a charitable good is a win, win, win,” said ReCellular Vice President Mike Newman, 32.

That year, there were about 16 million cellular subscribers worldwide, according to the International Telecommunication Union. By 2005, that number had grown to 2.14 billion, outstripping the 1.26 billion land lines, the group said.

When ReCellular opened for business 15 years ago, it handled 300 to 400 cellphones a month…

With Americans trading in their phones for fancier models every 18 months on average, the supply of used but perfectly functional phones is enormous, Newman said. Millions, however, end up sitting in drawers or closets because people don’t know what to do with them, he said.

Yep, my education at ASU told me to read USA Today from time to time.

JustinB: I hate to break it to you, but producing more than you need is the secret to creating wealth.  If I’m an expert cabinetmaker, but only make enough cabinets for myself and my family, it is a hobby, and only me and my family benefit from it.  If I make more than I need, then I can sell them to others who want fine cabinetry and become wealthy in the process.  It is the secret of our prosperity, despite your trying to make it a moral issue.
I’m disputing your using “excess” in a negative way; if that’s what you learned at ASU, res ipsa loquitur.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I have never said excess is a negative.  It drives prices lower for everyone.  And consuming new goods is not a negative either.  It makes old goods “excess” and allows them to be exported.

What I am saying is that our country is so wealthy that our “excess” of production, old electronics, clothing, etc., isn’t good enough for our own poor.  Our poor demand a new TV, preferably a flat screen, new clothes, preferably Nike, prefer new Cell Phones, preferably Motorola RAZR or KRZR’s not five year old Nokias.

Our entire economic model operates off of the concept of excess as defined by Adam Smith and the pinmaker.  Excess production causes falling prices and that makes items more affordable for everyone.  Our excess cell phones allow the reuse of old ones of no value to us for folks in the Third World.  And that makes everyone better off. 

My point is that our “poor” are wealthy enough that when they want a cell phone, they buy a new one.  If we have so effing many poor people, why isn’t the internal resale market for used clothing adn cell phones and electronics stronger?  Because our poor have higher disposable incomes than most of the world and our poor don’t have to buy used.

The issue is why do our “poor” have such high disposable incomes?  It is because of transfer payments and entitlements.  Welfare feeds them.  Subsidized housing houses them.  Medicaid pays their medical bills.  Free public transportation gets them to and from work.  And every dime that they make no longer is allocated to food, shelter, healthcare, and so on, so they have all this extra money for clothes and cell phones and cable TV and so on.  So in subsidizing housing or food or transit, we are in fact subsidizing clothing and cell phones and cable TV because now they people can spend their money on other luxury items.

The issue is why do our “poor” have such high disposable incomes?

Because we are so wealthy that even those at the low end of our income scale have more than most other world citizens.  Even if you subtract the welfare, they are still wealthier than most other people in the world.  It’s all because of our “excess”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

No, it is because of forced government reallocation of our excess toward the poor because folks like John “Two Americas” Edwards and others decide that my money is better spent in their hands than in my own.

Again, our poor do not merit having government redistribute wealth so that they can have even more excess.  They already live well, even at the lowest end of the poverty scale.  We lose sight of how well our poor would do even without redistribution programs compared to the rest of the world.  And I believe they would do even better if their lives were not padded from the cold hard reality of life by our nanny state government.

Then they would earn the excess and feel connected with the effort that produces our wealth instead of merely sucking at the tit of big government.

Mmm! Government cheese!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

...they can have even more excess.

When you become Czar, you can decide for us all what is excess; until then, MYOB.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

wiat, my having a problem with redistribution systems and government programs because I don’t like seeing my tax dollars used by the allegedly “poor” to buy cell phones, cable TV, and luxury items is a situation where I need to mind my own business?

Having a problem with a redistribution system that rewards people simply for finding a way into this country to birth their children as anchor babies so that our “poverty” can be their new “prosperity” is a situation where I need to mind my own business?  And saying that just south of the border, those folks deal with REAL POVERTY as does most of the rest of the world and that our time, money, and effort would be better spent looking at the real poverty of just north and central America instead of funding government programs that reward the behaviors that lead people into poverty is a situation where I need to mind my own business?

It is my business to state that government is taxing our folks and redistributing monies to the poor at levels that are above those needed to sustain these folks that are allegedly living in “poverty”.  It is all of our business to question the definition of “poverty” and its arbitrary use as a category to justify our Marxist redistribution system.  There are a million better ways to spend our tax dollars than giving subsidies to the “poor” so that they can buy cell phones.  I much prefer rice and beans and cheese from the USDA, but now they give you a food stamp debit card.

As a taxpayer, I think it is my business to mind how my government uses tax dollars and especially when they spend things on $50 screwdrivers and $100 toilet seats.  Most of these anti-poverty programs are just as wasteful and just as useless.

No, what I earn is never excess.  It is mine.  The surplus that it creates is mine to do with as I please.  To sell or barter.  My excess income from the fruits of my labor is used for my own benefit.

I think you misunderstand.  The poor are not entitled to an excess, save it be by earning it.  They are not somehow entitled to reap the fruits of the labors of others simply by having the fortune of being American.  And government is taking the excess that others earn through their labor and redistributing it to others that have not earned it and providing these folks with more than they need to survive--an excess.  Government assistance, if needed at all, should only be sufficient to meet basic needs of those that are disabled or unable to work.  Our redistribution system is providing far more than that and is actually providing a system where there is little if any incentive to work among the lower tiered workers. 

What belongs to me belongs to me.  What belongs to the poor often belongs to all of us, but has been confiscated and given to them simply as a reward for living here and for “qualifying” as impoverished.

Poor people still can afford to buy there very own dream house. At least that’s what people are speculating about

THIS

JustinB: For me, you went wrong in two ways: your emotional attachment to the concept of “excess”, and your blaming poor people for taking what the vote-buying politicians offer them in exchange for the political power they hand over to said politicians.
Until people learn that there is no free lunch, it will always be that way; get used to it, or devote yourself to educating them, and try not to let your anger get in the way.  You can’t blame them for taking what is so temptingly offered.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The point here is not that we shouldn’t care for the poor, but rather that we should be wary of the big-government types who would love to define most of America as poor for the express purpose of getting them hooked on government entitlements, thus gaining control over their lives.

Yes, but the Democrats would have us all pay the bill for health care on people who are supposedly “poor”, very scary.