How free are we?

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
I agree, but when one has fallen, society should help. It is the right thing to do.

When one has fallen, "society" in the form of family, extended family, neighbors, churches, hospitals, charities and to the extent that the "local citizenary" allow the local and state governments...can and do help...its not for the Federal Government to get into....

No where did anyone say no one deserves help, no where was that ever said...The arguement is that the Federal Government has no authority legally under the Constitution to provide that help with Tax Dollars....

As i said, this arguement is older then anyone here and will still be around after everyone here is dead and gone.....
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
I think there is a real problem in this country when we define "poor". The standard here is much different. There are all kinds of jobs currently available that they don't want to do. Every excuse imaginable from "I don't work for 10.00 per hour, I'm not working those hours, to I don't work outside" and the list goes on. You have a whole industry of illegals here fulfilling many of those jobs.
Same deal with people that owe 100k in student loans and majored in basket weaving, to people that have 500 a month car payment or houses that they financed and never could afford.
Can't blame the banks because they were too stupid to read a contract. Just can't excuse that kind of stuff.
Many of the so called poor here have cars, houses, big screens, high dollar shoes, computers you name it. These people have no clue what "poor" really is. I think they should take a hard look at other countries including some of the third world countries, and then maybe they might have a clue of what "poor" really is.

I don't think anyone has a problem with welfare or unemployment for a short period of time. This madness of throwing money at it year after year is a total waste. We currently spend a trillion dollars a year towards the poor and yep.....nothing has changed. So why do it?
And I am not talking about people that are incapacitated in some way, or really can't work. That number is a extremely small.
The elderly that are poor is a different situation. They should get the amount they contributed into social security even though many don't. If you are going to give money away, that is where it should be spent.

Thanks Dave, I knew I kept this article for a good time:D...:

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

By Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield
July 19, 2011
What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

Read the Executive Summary here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...d-xbox-what-is-poverty-in-united-states-today

Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?

For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.

Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons[5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.

Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.

As a rule of thumb, poor households tend to obtain modern conveniences about a dozen years after the middle class. Today, most poor families have conveniences that were unaffordable to the middle class not too long ago.

Poverty: A Range of Living Conditions

However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.

Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession.[6] Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.

Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.

In discussions about poverty, however, misunderstanding and exaggeration are commonplace. Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.
 
Last edited:

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I agree, but when one has fallen, society should help. It is the right thing to do.

Shouldn't we leave that issue to the local community instead of the entire society? There is no one better to determine the difference between need and abuse.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
so what all these pages, comes down to really simple....

Welfare is NOT a Federal issue, but a state issue.....I would go on to say...IF
The federal government believes they have the majority of the peoples support....only way to settle the issue...an Amendment. there would be 4 or 5 here not happy and again accuse the government of ballet box stuffing..:rolleyes:.LOL

and around we go again.....LOL
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Thanks Dave, I knew I kept this article for a good time:D...:

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

By Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield
July 19, 2011
What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

Read the Executive Summary here:

Executive Summary: Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

Excellent article. The "true poor" or people in dire need, is roughly 10 percent of the welfare rolls. That number has changed little over the last thirty years. The other ninety percent are your basic "takers".
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Excellent article. The "true poor" or people in dire need, is roughly 10 percent of the welfare rolls. That number has changed little over the last thirty years. The other ninety percent are your basic "takers".

These are the ones I am refering to. If one is truly in need, I feel the right thing to do as a society, is to help. It is the right thing to do.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
These are the ones I am refering to. If one is truly in need, I feel the right thing to do as a society, is to help. It is the right thing to do.

And when we get to that small of a number, family, friends, church, charity and even local government in the most dire cases are able to care for them. The need for fed involvement is the thing fairy tales are made of.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
These are the ones I am refering to. If one is truly in need, I feel the right thing to do as a society, is to help. It is the right thing to do.

What Xiggi said!!

It the Federal Government has no authority to use the money paid by the US taxpayer in taxes for welfare or to help anyone.....
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
speaking of M. Thatcher....anyone watched the movie yet.....we did last week.....I wanted to hear only one line from her...."Sink it"....beautiful
Then the talk with the US Sec, of State at that time....asking her if she really wanted to go to war over some island thousands of miles away...to which she responded..."I seem to remember a little remote island 1000's of miles away in the Pacific"....that shut him up....LOL
 

piattteam

Active Expediter
"Too young" should be fed, clothed, housed by their families. Being a single mother is no excuse to not work. Find a family member to babysit. Oh, how about a few single moms babysitting (as a job!) for other single moms to go to work! I seriously doubt anybody minds helping someone who honestly, seriously, positively CANNOT work. To those too lazy- STARVE!!!!
 

piattteam

Active Expediter
How many "poor" people that we are feeding, clothing, housing, etc. have Ipads, laptops, cell phones, get their nails done, hair dyed, curled, straightened, smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, eat out often, ect.. How many ofd those we are bailing out because their house is "under water" have more than one car, a motorcycle, a boat, smart phone, Ipad, etc, etc, etc.
How much of the credit card debt was for "fun" things?
How many bankruptcies are from over spending on "fun"?
Yes, some people (a small number) are in bad situations not due to their own bad decisions, etc.. Most however, are in dire straights from their own stupidity!
 

piattteam

Active Expediter
I have three brothers. NOT ONE OF THEM has a job! This is their choice. They still find enough money to smoke and drink, but not for healthcare. This is their own choice- I should not be forced to provide for them. Too often, you hear "what if it were your family?". Well, as you can see, I feel the same whether it is my family, or total strangers.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Has every individual agreed? I haven't. No one can agree for me. I bet most people haven't agreed to that.

You know better then that....not everyone has to agree.....and it is legal....because it is Provincial run, not federal.....

Your system is a complete disaster...insurance companies ripping people off. canceling policies, increasing rates to sky high levels....and then your feds running interference now,...
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
You know better then that....not everyone has to agree.....and it is legal....because it is Provincial run, not federal.....

Your system is a complete disaster...insurance companies ripping people off. canceling policies, increasing rates to sky high levels....and then your feds running interference now,...


"Wasn't that party....might have been the gin...could have been the 3-4 six packs i dont know but look at the mess WE'RE in..." :d
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
You know better then that....not everyone has to agree.....and it is legal....because it is Provincial run, not federal.....

Your system is a complete disaster...insurance companies ripping people off. canceling policies, increasing rates to sky high levels....and then your feds running interference now,...

I have to agree to have my paycheck raided to support others to make it anything other than immoral, unethical, and yes, illegal theft. Anybody whose paycheck is raided without his explicit consent has been robbed. No way around it. It's legal, ethical, and moral to tax for the general welfare--roads, bridges, the military, etc., but individual welfare is not the general welfare, and I'm not responsible for it, nor are Canucks. It may not be illegal there like it is here, where we have limited government with only the powers enumerated in the Constitution, but it's still certainly immoral and unethical.

The reason for our problems in our health care system is government interference in the free market. Every time the free market is allowed to function, prices come down while innovation goes up. We pay a fraction of what we used to in trucking, air travel, wireless telephones, and traditional telephony. Know why? Because they were deregulated.

If the most anybody could or would pay for a heart transplant was $5000, guess how much a heart transplant would cost. Why are they exponentially higher? Because there's more money in the system. The law of supply and demand guarantees the price will skyrocket under those conditions. But that's a capitalist understanding; canucks might not get it.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Oh trust me they get it....and most I know want nothing to do with the US. Is it so hard for some to believe you don't have the best system?
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Oh trust me they get it....and most I know want nothing to do with the US. Is it so hard for some to believe you don't have the best system?

Well, first of all, socialism, being immoral and unethical, based in envy and sloth, can't be the best system. Capitalist-based systems are unquestionably the best. I feel so strongly about this, I recommend the US does something different and tries a capitalist health care system immediately. We've never tried it, so it would be a new experience for us.

Oh, and the Canucks who are told they have to wait 6 months for a life-saving procedure and come to America for it seem to like our system just fine.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Well, first of all, socialism, being immoral and unethical, based in envy and sloth, can't be the best system. Capitalist-based systems are unquestionably the best. I feel so strongly about this, I recommend the US does something different and tries a capitalist health care system immediately. We've never tried it, so it would be a new experience for us.

Oh, and the Canucks who are told they have to wait 6 months for a life-saving procedure and come to America for it seem to like our system just fine.

Thanks to the new capitalist system they can elect a private clinic to have it done....:)

It is called progress...the US should try it....
 
Top