Posted on 12/05/2012 8:53:35 PM PST by JerseyanExile
The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.
The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.
This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be “poor” in the United States?
To the average American, the word “poverty” means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.
But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Which is the entire purpose of the welfare system. A lady I know is on S-8. She works part time and received a promotion to supervisor increasing her pay by about $325/month. S-8 reevaluated her and lowered her subsidy by $350.
Taking the promotion would cost her $25/month. She declined it. Face to face true story. I have more. The system is designed by the Devil to destroy human integrity and families.
Exceelent & true. It’s how human beings can sacrifice babies to dumb idols or put people into ovens. What horrors will the 21st century see?
“Non-cash benefits from the government - food stamps, medical care, housing, utilities, meals at school for the kiddies, the “free” education in government schools, and even a free Obamaphone are not counted as income. If you had all these things provided for you and had some income, would you call that living in poverty?”
You forgot the obesity & diabetes that seems to plague our starving masses...
“She works part time and received a promotion to supervisor increasing her pay by about $325/month. S-8 reevaluated her and lowered her subsidy by $350.”
That scenario is playing out nationally as our decent jobs are shipped overseas, except it doesn’t revolve around declining promotions; it is about declining work in general. The “safety net” has become so profitable that there is no motive to work; high taxes on the middle class have created an anomaly where low-wage jobs simply offer nothing the nanny-state wouldn’t have provided (without the 40 hours of effort). This dovetails with the whole argument that illegals are doing “jobs Americans don’t want”. Americans always did those jobs when they could earn a living; now they can “earn a living” staying home, while those jobs are done by illegals.
Oh no, I don’t believe Rector. He’s citing facts and detailed information. But movies, tv, and the media have told me there are countless millions of homeless and starving Americans. They’re all over the place. I haven’t seen any personally (I have seen a lot of very well-fed Americans), but the people on the tube have reliably informed me about all the starving, homeless people. Who should I believe: facts from people like Rector or the lib media and entertainment industry? (snicker)
Try walking into the emergency room.
what is Medicaid?
I recently saw something where you’d have to make $69K per year, with a family of four, to offset the combination of government benefits and salary that a $29K salary provides.
And as your own math suggests, a single hard-working earner, with two 40-hour per week, minimum-wage jobs, or two minimum-wage earners each working 40-hours per week, would therefore make the equivalent of $69K per year, which is well over the median in this country. Truly, there’s no excuse for a healthy, married couple not to be able to raise kids in at least moderate comfort.
Wish I knew why my little comment is raising such confusion. The poor do not always get Medicaid. I speak from experience. Clearly in the category, yet overqualified for Medicaid.
You can only get on disability if you’re already getting some other form of “assistance”.
That way they can be assured that the “right” type of people are getting it.
If you’re truly disabled, plan on a huge legal fight and a 4 year wait.
Running is so much safer, it scares away the bears.
Yes, but you said the poor, implying all the poor, do not receive medical assistance. That’s clearly not true. I don’t know your particular circumstances, but millions of peole qualified as poor by the fed. and state governments do receive medical assistance.
In my state, if you are over 18, you won’t qualify for Medicaid unless your monthly income is less than $300. It’s pretty much for children and pregnant women.
While nobody sees the whole picture, I believe misconceptions arise when we think of the poor as city dwellers who thrive on benefitss and handouts in places where jobs are plentiful.
I also bring merely some anecdotal experiences to the discussion, but at least it’s a different perspective — some firsthand, and what I’ve learned from the mainly senior population in my area.
Disability is indeed a steep hill to climb. It’s also uncertain and can depend on very undependable variables, for instance the physician. What if your doctor decides not to accept Medicare patients, and you’re cut adrift, with a disability he deemed not permanent? The time nears for review of your eligibility, and you’re still scrambling for a new doctor. The nearest specialist is 20 miles away. The handbook says they’ll send a van to take you there, but — sorry, they really don’t.
That’s the experience of one elderly friend of mine. Here’s another: a WW2 vet, with a combat-incurred disability, gets govt compensation for it, a few hundred a month. He can’t hear, walk, or breathe without equipment. The govt won’t pay for a hearing aid. His Social Security check is reduced because of the disability award, to under $300 a month. He’d like to appeal that but is afraid to “make waves,” because the govt is likely to reconsider his ability to care for himself, and might instead pack him off to a nursing home, where 2 of his siblings were taken after being relieved of their assets, against their will. He hasn’t much — a dog, a two-room house, a good gun and some photos he enjoys talking about — but to him that’s a lot.
Again, anecdotal. But the poor aren’t all buying fancy gizmos and tobacco with EBT cards, and driving off in better cars than the shorn taxpayers who make it possible. Some are old folks with a different ethic, who make-do with what they have and fear the government when it comes to “help” them.
“I was at a friend’s house recently, and he began slamming “rich” people saying they have to pay more taxes, are the root of the problems, etc.”
There is a guy I work with that is alway going on about how the country is stacked in favor of rich people and that poor folks like him don’t stand a chance.
Or rather he used to go on, until I burst out laughing when he started.
I pointed out that he owned two houses — free and clear, no mortgage, and had half a million dollars in retirement savings and a six-figure bank acount for walking-around money. That if he had all that he wasn’t poor, and in the definition of many folks would be considered rich — especially since his household consisted of just him and he had no kids and had never had a spouse.
He sputtered for a while, and then finally — “I am *not* rich.” Idiot doesn’t have a clue.
Contrarily, when one says "the poor do get medical assistance," that is equally clearly not true of all the poor. And that's assistance, never mind medical care.
But I never said all the poor get medical assistance...even though for sure millions do. I was just responding to the remark implying NO!! poor get medical assistance or care.
Imagine the bread riots once you move to change the laws and ask people to work again.
“Imagine the bread riots once you move to change the laws and ask people to work again.”
Obama removed the work requirement for welfare; after his win I’d imagine neither party will be in a rush to put it back. We’ll end up like Europe, where 20% unemployment is the norm; they’ve been at our current level for decades (and keep voting for more of the same).
And I never said you did. Sheesh, give it a rest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.