It’s nice to place a face on a group of people you wish to stigmatize that is not at all like yours. To make them something other than you so that you can make blanket negative statements. A lot of people do that about the poor in this country. They make them into minorities who sit around and do nothing but milk the system. The poor become mostly black, single mothers with multiple children or are foreign born mostly illegal aliens that do nothing but take while contributing nothing. The facts show this is not the case and the facts don’t lie.
Unless there is fraud involved, since 1996, there is no such thing as a healthy adult who is able to live entirely on public assistance for life without having to work. The most a person can stay on TANF (cash assistance) is 2-3 years. In order to recieve some kind of assistance, anyone who is healthy and able to work needs to work. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, signed that law into effect.
I went on the U.S. Census web site and looked up statistics about the poor in this country. They were as recent as 2007. I want to share what I found. Out of over 280 million people:
13.3% of the American population are at or below the poverty level, or about 39 million (about the same percentage as those households that make over $100,000)
56% of the poor (those at or below 100% of the poverty level) were female, 44% were male
21 million (53.8%) of America’s poor were white, as opposed to 8 million (20.5%) blacks
Only half were children or the elderly, the rest were adults between the ages of 18 and 64
10 million of the poor live in 2 parent families (over 25%), 14.3 million are from female only headed households (only 36.7%)
32.5 million of the poor are US natives (83.3%), while only about 6 million (15%) are from foreign born families (legal or illegal)
Does that change the face of the poor of this nation for you? If it does, than you have based your perception of the poor in America on stereotypes that are neither true nor accurate. How has your perception of the poor changed?Does the face of the poor in America look a lot more like your family or friends?
If charity begins at home, and the poor of America look a lot like those who live in your home, maybe your attitudes about charity, both public and private, need to change…
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
The federally funded TANF is two years. Individual states may also provide assistance to families beyond the 60 months.
I think the TANF program has provided itself a very useful program and is needed for the families more than ever right now.
The poverty stricken children of America are the victims here and they deserve better from this country.
Kouba,
Thank you.
Hmm… I read blogs on a similar topic, but i never visited your blog. I added it to favorites and i’ll be your constant reader.
But, we’re not talking about poverty as defined by “the days of the Industrial Revolution, in the days of the Depression”. What we’re talking about is not really that different from 1964. So that part of your argument doesn’t hold water. My family, as did many others, lived through the Great Depression and today’s conditions, even among the poorest of the poor, cannot be compared to the conditions of that era.
As for the mega-churches, I agree. But, the mega-churches only church a small percentage of the church-going population. According to USAChurches.org, there are 11 churches in Dallas that qualify as mega-churches. Even if the average attendance is 12,000 each, that only accounts for 132,000. Dallas is a city of 1.3 million (Dallas proper, not metro) and if only 35% (conservative number) attend church regularly, that still leaves 323,000 that attend the smaller, more traditional congregations. And I think you do a great disservice to the larger churches. They actually put forth a great effort in providing services to the poor in their community.
I want to address one more point that you made in a prior comment – “To take those who are 55, with a lifetime of the ‘welfare habit € and expect them to change with a sign of a pen is unrealistic.” These are the very people raising the younger generations. This is why the welfare mentality is so ingrained. When you have 3rd & 4th generation welfare recipients, it has simply become a way of life to them, and they know nothing else. So, yes, it may be unrealistic to change those who are 55 and older, but it is equally difficult, and in some cases, I would imagine, more difficult to change those they have raised.
Once upon a time, the American public felt a sense of civic responsibility and the church saw charity toward all, not just those of their own denominations. Now you have mega-churches that teach the virtue of individual wealth and spend millions of dollars to construct mega-complexes that do nothing but insultate their members from the rest of society. You have an american publice conditioned by the media and Madison Avenue to place the twin gods of ME and personal wealth before all else. Worth as defined by money, not virtue or character.
Maybe at one point in time you would have been right, but not today…
Read Dickens, Upton Sinclair, and other authors of the Industrial Revolution before government considered the public welfare an area for their concern. This was back in the days when religious faith, heaven, and hell actually meant something. If you think the government has had no impact on the state of poverty, I think you are mistaken. The definition of poverty has changed in this country along with the overall condition of its people and that has a great deal to do with the government. In the days of the Industrial Revolution, in the days of the Depression, poverty meant starvation.
And the precentage of the American population at or below the poverty rate is around 13%- which if significantly less then 20%. in a population of 280 million that amounts to 36.4 million vs. 56 million. I think 20 million less poor due to government programs- more than the combined population of the major cities of the Northeast US- is a PRETTY big deal.
Great article – http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860
Details the history of the War on Poverty and how miserably the government has failed.
That was a point I’ve been dying to make.
In Mark 14:7 (also recorded in Matthew 26:11 and John 12:8), Jesus said, “For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good:…”
Here is where my philosophy and the liberal philosophy diverge. On Jan 8, 1964, Pres Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “War on Poverty” with this statement – ” ‘The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. € Racial injustice I can buy into. Elimination of poverty? Not so much. Abundance for all? It had never happened at any time in history within any civilization and it was absolutely inane to even consider that we could come close to solving the problem now.
Fact – in 1964, when LBJ began the longest and most expensive war in American history, the poverty rate was approx 20%. Today, that rate appears to hover around 17%, a whopping 3% drop – IN 45 YEARS!!! in 1982-1983, the rate rose to about 20%, and again in 1993. During that same period, however, the rate has actually fallen as low as 16% in 1972, 1973 and again in 1999. The point is that even with the largesse of the United States Government, this has proven to be a war that simply cannot be won.
There will never be an end of poverty. There will be poor people for as long as humans inhabit the earth. That’s just the way it is, always has been, and always will be. I’m not trying to be mean-spirited. I’ve been there.
Where I disagree with the liberal logic is that it is not, not should it ever be, the duty of the state to provide for the poor. It is the duty of the individual citizens and churches, which, until the federal government decided to take over that role, was doing a pretty good job.
It is one thing to want to eliminate poverty…it is another thing entirely to change the laws of nature so that it will happen. It simply cannot be done.
Sorry for the name goof- was trying to multi-task and it’s not my strong point.
Those that want an easy way out will find a way to “game.” An accident attorney can attest to that. Could loopholes be closed? Sure, no system is perfect. As long as the forest is not cut down to uproot a few bad trees…
TANF was a step in the right direction and a necessary one. It was, and is, a good compromise and stop gap on the road to weaning poeple off the welfare system. It is a perfect example of how to take a step approach to addressing a long term problem with a realistic long term solution. To take those who are 55, with a lifetime of the “welfare habit” and expect them to change with a sign of a pen is unrealistic. With 10 years of TANF to have helped change habits, in a few years, once the economy settles down, the Federal Government could look at tightening the system a little more. To make it an even more temporary system and to spend the money that would be spent on subsistence on retraining those who have been left behind to qualify for the well paying jobs that are currently going unfilled.
Poverty can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced. However, ignoring it or creating an “us vs. them” mentality does not help to make it happen. Serious long term problems require serious long term solutions, ones that become a commitment of the American people as a whole, since a 2 term President cannot achieve them in his time.
Um…that would be Ben (not Dan), thank you very much. One would think, that with only 3 letters, it would be easy enough to get right.
Here’s what I “know” about poverty. It is very possible, through hard work and determination to climb out of it. I also know, after working for 4 yrs w/ EW (a nationwide non-profit) and spending upwards of 70 hrs a week working with low-income persons age 55 and over, that there are a lot of people out there who are looking for a handout. The example I offered was extreme, I know, but there are also many others who had even less to lose, but were so steeped in the welfare mentality that, when presented to opportunity to better themselves, simply would not.
I agree, I was probably way over the top when I said the vast majority, but there are a whole lot of people who have become so accustomed to allowing the government to give them what they need that they simply don’t see the need to get it for themselves when they’ve never had to.
As for your article, when you mentioned, “The most a person can stay on TANF (cash assistance) is 2-3 years. In order to recieve some kind of assistance, anyone who is healthy and able to work needs to work. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, signed that law into effect.”, there are a lot of loopholes in the TANF (formerly AFDC) that can be taken advantage of. The key words in that statement are “anyone who is healthy and able to work needs to work.” At the time, I applauded Bill Clinton because I thought then, and I think now, that Welfare reform was way past due. But, just as the inmates at the maximum security facility where I’m employed, those who benefit most from the system know how to work, or “game”, the system that provides for them.
Consti,
There are “victims” in all walks of life…don’t assume that everyone, or even the majority, who has experienced adversity in their lives in some form or another sees themselves as victims, or treat them as though they are asking you to. You are projecting things onto others that are not there. That was the point of the whole article- projecting an image onto others.
You pat Dan on the back, yet still manage to throw a dig based on a projection. You will take dozens, hundreds, thousands of examples of sexperiences just like Dan’s and will label them as “exceptions” or “stories”, even though the statistics and ratios would show that they are closer to the norm. Yet, at the same time, you will take the few stories of those who abuse the system and make them representatives of the whole. Dan does it with that one woman, and takes his experiences with the elderly as representative of the whole population regardless of age. And makes it only the poor who are unmotivated, as if there are none anywhere else in the population. As if there are none among the middle class or the wealthy. I have met lazy middle class folks- go to Walmart and watch the people who will drive around and around, then almost run someone over in the parking lot in order to get a spot close to the door so that they don’t have to walk 10 extra steps. Or the upper middle calss to wealthy stay at home wives who do not work, even though they have degrees, do not clean their own homes, do not even really cook, and don’t even really take care of their kids (not at home anymore, split time with another parent, booarding school or constantly in one class or lesson or the like), but have time to shop, go to lunch, got get their hair, nails, etc done, or go to the gym primarily to stand around and socialize. I have seen multiple examples of both of these people, but are they the norm? Do I believe they represent the majority of the middle or upper class? No, they don’t and no I don’t. Would it be right for me to project those labels? No, it wouldn’t.
How is that any different from what you are doing?
How does that make any sense, unless it is skewing the facts to fit what you want to see or believe as opposed to what is?
Ben,
The difference is you didn’t allow yourself to be labeled a victim. If you are a “victim of poverty” it somehow makes personal responsibility un-necessary. And you have to be saved. Eloquently put my friend.
I love how you assume, having never met me, spoken to me, or finding out a single thing about me, what my life has or has not been like.
I love how you assume, based on the small number of people you have met, what the VAST MAJORITY (no stats) are like, think, or believe in.
The whole point of the article was to demonstrate that the stereoypes that a large number of people, especially white middle class and upper middle class people hold is not accurate. You and your family are perfect examples of that, as am I. YOU are the one who are placing judgement where there is none. YOU, who have been poor, know as well as anyone the inaccuracy of stereotyping “the poor.”
I can give you just as many examples from real life of people who are poor, but who work hard and live lives of dignity and respect, as you can of those who don’t. Don’t disrespect those people by making them part of the “vast majority” of poor who do nothing.
How many people with a family can afford to take and live solely on a restaurant job? Do you know what they pay? Do you think they have benefits? We aren’t talking about $8.50 an hour with benefits here. So to use that as an example or comparison is not accurate or fair.
I am 42 y/o white male who grew up poor in Tulsa, OK. My mother died when I was 2 y/o and my alcoholic father abandoned my sister and me at our aunt and uncle’s home (they had a daughter, also). My uncle worked at a chemical plant, never having made more than $5/hr – even after 38 yrs!!! My aunt was a homemaker who chose not to work so she could take care of the children. My aunt took in foster children, for which she rec’d the spectacular sum of $66/mo – total. I grew up in a 620 sq ft home with 5 people residing in it. At times, there were up to 8.
I have a very different perspective when it comes to poverty than I imagine Laura will ever know. It comes from first-hand knowledge. I understand what it’s like to wear hand-me-downs to school and suffer the taunts of those who were more fortunate. I know what it’s like to walk to work and home because there was no money to buy a car.
Today, however, my life is decidedly different than it was 20-35 years ago. Why? Because I applied myself. I was somehow able to find jobs when there were no jobs to be found. I remember once when I was laid off in Tulsa in 1987 (Tulsa, OK – Oil Capital of the World, and in the middle of one of the biggest oil busts in history) and walked the streets in July between 3rd and 11th and Peoria and Utica for 7 hrs one day filling out applications until I finally found an employer willing to hire me, even though they really didn’t need more help. Yes, it was part-time, but it was a job and meant I no longer had to rely on unemployment. Even after being laid off 5 times in a 20 mo period, I was on unemployment for less than 3 mos of that because I was willing to accept whatever job was offered.
I worked as a Field Operations Coordinator for Experience Works, Inc., the nations largest adminstrator of Title Vof the Older Americans Act for 4 yrs (2000-2004). I worked with low-income senior citizens as a job skills training and employment counselor to help them find training opportunities and become employable so they could move off public assistance and be self-sufficient. but, this program worked only as well as the client wanted it to. There was one lady – 58, white, good health, excellent typist, great phone skills – and I had a job lined up for her. This position was with a well-established new car dealer and was going to pay $8.50/hr – 40 hrs/wk with vacation, sick leave and all her insurance paid 100% by the employer. She went for the interview and called to say they had offered her the job. When I asked when she started work, she said that she had decided not to take it, as it would put her over the limit for Medicaid and housing assistance.
This is the mentality that the nation is steeped in. Yes, I understand that not all those living in poverty are like this, but the vast majority are. In my town, there are Help Wanted signs in every restaurant window, yet there are still those that consider that kind of work beneath them.
Thanks for letting me ramble, Laura. I will be ready to respond to whatever shot you decide to take on this response.
As always you are welcome to your opinion.
Excuse me, but I never said that you did. I said stereotype- is the fact that you take that label for yourself something we should note?… And I notice that you are now trying to create a negaytive personal attack where there wasn’t one instead of commenting on the facts… I have never called you a racist; only intolerant, nasty in your choice of words and a hypocrite. Get your facts strtaight…
If you read any of my articles you will find I never mention race or stero types. That is what you have done in your comments. I suggest you review my writing and find ONE INSTANCE where I call out the poor as being “Black unwed mothers”. You will find it’s your comments that have made that sterotype, and tried to assign it to me. Again, don’t put words into my mouth.
Since the lack of a link makes me a liar, or a storyteller:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S1703&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_
It’s all there, in black and white…
I told you in the article- go to the US Census website and check them for yourself. I have made comments against fraud both here in this column and in previous ones, but you choose not to see those which is quite par for the course for you. I can’t help it that the numbers don’t support what you want to believe or need to believe to support your views. The point of the article, especially since you hawked for “proof” that all poor are not single black mothers bearing broods of childern. Half of all poor are adults, the other are children AND seniors, so less than a one to one ratio- steroetype blown. Only a little over 1/3 of poor households are headed by single mothers- stereotype blown. It’s minorities, particularly blacks, who are poor; over half are white- stereotype blown. It’s illegals who come over here and suck away- less than 6% of the poor are foreign born, legal AND illegal- stereotype blown. Are 100% of them receiving aid and cheating? Where’s your proof of that?
You want more stats- 14% of the people in this country earn more than double ($120,000+) the median household income (less than $52,000). Yet that 14%, due to tax loopholes and writeoffs, pay a LESSER percentage of taxes than 72% of the American public…. I’m sure that you don’t like those numbers either…Until the loopholes are closed, they will continue to pay a lesser percentage.
The numbers are what the numbers are- these are not polls and they are not “stories”. Try to argue them all you want- the proof is right there. It’s not my problem or fault you don’t like them. There is greed on both sides of the fence, but you choose to elevate people like Bill Gates, Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefeller because they take a MINISCULE percentage of what they make and give it to others…And I’m sure that Bill Gates does not use those donations as a writeoff…At the same time, you demonize anyone that is poor or has received assistance as lazy, a liar, a cheat, greedy, and a con artist, while taking government money yourself. Does that mean you are calling yourself all of these things? Of course not… you have all kinds of excuses why YOU are different. Many of these people have paid taxes at various points in their lives to, so why can’t they take some of that money that they paid in to get back on their feet?
The greedy are everywhere in all walks of life and will exploit any situation. Don’t put them all on one side of the tracks – it’s neither accurate nor is it fair.
Laura fails to point out as usual the GREED of those milking the system in her article. It’s pretty talk to throw numbers, but unless you express both sides of the coin you are just distorting the facts. She’ll make claims of robber barrons, or back room deals, and demand money from the “rich” in “atonement” for their greed. But where is the equality of her statements when it comes to the poor? She makes it sound as if greed and milking the system are alright, even justified since the numbers are low. Numbers she fails to mention in her article. Sure Census data can tell you how many are poor, but it doesn’t tell you how many cheats there are in it. 85% of people know that 45% of all polls are skewed by the 35 % ratio of the question in relation to the 10% of the answers. Hey look! Numbers! Also, why doesn’t she include a link to the site she got this information from? According to this document over half of the U.S. states rank below the mean income. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-2.pdf I can look at census data too, and it doesn’t talk about the graft in the system.
You may expect a heartless even rude comment from me and I will not dissappoint.
(It’s been 20 years, so I’ll paraphrase) Late comedian Sam Kinison suggested the following: How to stop the bleeding.
Take the 365 agents Obama has fired from border security and the 2700 new agents he has hired to prosecute old women having garage sales, church bazzars and the like from selling “polly pocket dolls, and other recalled toys, and assign them to help the poor.
Give each of them a gun and tickets to the Sudan. When they find anyone who just sits on their ass watching TV all day or bumming change for gas for a non-existant car, place the gun to their temple.
Tell them they will be back in a week. If they do not have a job, they must show they are helping society by cleaning street trash, erasing graffitti, mowing an indigence lawn or fixing the roof of those unable to help themselves, or taking advantage of the hundreds of self help programs. If they cannot show this they have no reason to be alive. Ticket or bullet?
Soon we would have a nation of producers, helping themselves or others.
Silly, crazy or a damn good fantasy? If they beleived it was for real, neither bullets or tickets would ever be needed.