What are necessities/ luxuries for poor americans?

[bennyhill]

I dont want to compare poor Americans to poor Africans, that would be silly, but what does a poor American need to be apart of american society?

Be they the socalled working poor with 2 or 3 jobs or people living on welfare, they all have needs. How much is society responsible for?

They have to pay rent
They have to own a used car unless they live in Megacities like NYC or Chicago.
They have to buy food
They need a telephone
They need clothes when their old clothes are worn out.
If they dont have an internet cafe (to search for jobs/ send resumes per email), they will need a netbook and internet provider.

Have I left anything out?

What they dont need is a cell phone and all these other gadgets from Apple ie ipod.
Vacations
Buy things they cant afford ie consumerism
Expensive food
A house where they cant pay the morgage
An expensive luxuary car ie BMW
unnecessar insurances

My brother-in-law once said a poor person only needs a table, chair and bread and water, but were not living in Afghanistan where that would be considered luxuary.

 

[Renae]

I dont want to compare poor Americans to poor Africans, that would be silly, but what does a poor American need to be apart of american society?

Be they the socalled working poor with 2 or 3 jobs or people living on welfare, they all have needs. How much is society responsible for?

They have to pay rent
They have to own a used car unless they live in Megacities like NYC or Chicago.
They have to buy food
They need a telephone
They need clothes when their old clothes are worn out.
If they dont have an internet cafe (to search for jobs/ send resumes per email), they will need a netbook and internet provider.

Have I left anything out?

What they dont need is a cell phone and all these other gadgets from Apple ie ipod.
Vacations
Buy things they cant afford ie consumerism
Expensive food
A house where they cant pay the morgage
An expensive luxuary car ie BMW
unnecessar insurances

My brother-in-law once said a poor person only needs a table, chair and bread and water, but were not living in Afghanistan where that would be considered luxuary.

I think they need a house, 2 cars, internet, cable, at least $250 a month in food, a computer, two cell phones, a laptop, health insurance and cable TV. After all, it's a right people have to these things, and we're a rich nation and should provide at least that level for all people.

(that's sarcasm if you haven't figured it out yet)


What should we provide? Actually no **** provide?

A legal system that treats all fairly.

A tax system that treats all fairly.

Fire, EMS and Police services for emergencies.

Anything else you should provide for yourself.

 

[justabubba]

I think they need a house, 2 cars, internet, cable, at least $250 a month in food, a computer, two cell phones, a laptop, health insurance and cable TV. After all, it's a right people have to these things, and we're a rich nation and should provide at least that level for all people.

(that's sarcasm if you haven't figured it out yet)


What should we provide? Actually no **** provide?

A legal system that treats all fairly.

A tax system that treats all fairly.

Fire, EMS and Police services for emergencies.

Anything else you should provide for yourself.

and what of those who are physically and/or mentally afflected and incapable of self reliance?
how about the kids born into poverty, the children of irresponsible parents?

how will they provide for themselves in your system?

 

[bennyhill]

As a conservative I didnt take you seriously for more than 5 seconds.

This is the point that Im trying to make. America does subsidize the lives of people who dont work ie unemployment insurance, welfare, invalid insurance and civil-servants. Ha.

If that is so, then how much help do the poor need? If you want to turn America into South Africa, then please say so. Its called survival of the fittest!

 

[Renae]

and what of those who are physically and/or mentally afflected and incapable of self reliance?
how about the kids born into poverty, the children of irresponsible parents?

how will they provide for themselves in your system?

Charity, Family, as an absolute last resort the individual states should decide how they feel is best to provide for those people.

And children of irresponsible parents, oh I just LOVE that heart string pulling lame ass argument. What group of people get the most federal money and support today? Poor black families.

How's that been working out?

 

[Renae]

As a conservative I didnt take you seriously for more than 5 seconds.

Since you're from across the pond, I don't really CARE what you think America should do.

This is the point that Im trying to make. America does subsidize the lives of people who dont work ie unemployment insurance, welfare, invalid insurance and civil-servants. Ha.

If that is so, then how much help do the poor need? If you want to turn America into South Africa, then please say so. Its called survival of the fittest!

They need as little help as possible. When you give people free stuff, they tend to get lazy. When you tell them "Oh you're poor, you cannot make it without our help" people tend to stagnant into helpless dependancy.

 

[bennyhill]

former president Bill Clinton was born in a poor family and he came pretty far in life and yes he did get help through a scholarship. So your assumptions are off base.


Americas 50 states have different resources. Some can provide more services than others. Now if a child is mentally retarded, why should his health care should be determined by which state he lives? Either America is one society with the same social standards, or its 50 countries.

 

[hiswoman]

As a conservative I didnt take you seriously for more than 5 seconds.

Gee, how open-minded of you. :roll:

I'm willing to bet that neither conservatives or your fellow liberals take you seriously here. Few people take haters seriously. :2wave:

 

[Renae]

former president Bill Clinton was born in a poor family and he came pretty far in life and yes he did get help through a scholarship. So your assumptions are off base.

Scholarships are merit based.

Americas 50 states have different resources. Some can provide more services than others. Now if a child is mentally retarded, why should his health care should be determined by which state he lives? Either America is one society with the same social standards, or its 50 countries.

This shows how LITTLE you understand America.

We are not the EU, we are not 50 "little countries" we are a REPUBLIC. The STATES can and should make as many decisions on the local level as possible. What resources should be utilized to "help" people should be a state decision.

Take Maine, a state I lived in for 3 years. My ex took care of a man that had been paralyzed from the neck down since his 18th birthday. I believe he was from Tenn. he moved to Maine because they paid for his treatment, a house, food... gave him a job. The people there support that, and good for them. What is good for Maine isn't good for say, Texas, or Nevada.

 

[bennyhill]

There is my point. If all states dont offer the same services, they then move to Maine. This is not fair for maine, why should they take care of people living in Virgiana?

An american should be able to have the right for the same HC services nationwide.

PS
some of you are really thin skined. I wanted to say, that I didnt take his scarcasism seriously because I knew the poster was very conservative and the text sound like something a college stundent would have written.

I never said I hate America, Im just as critical on the same issues as you are, for different reasons.

 

[lizzie]

There is my point. If all states dont offer the same services, they then move to Maine. This is not fair for maine, why should they take care of people living in Virgiana?

Then Maine should not offer the services.

As for necessities for the poor, they are the same as necessities for anyone else: food, water, shelter, clothing, warmth.

 

[justabubba]

Charity, Family, as an absolute last resort the individual states should decide how they feel is best to provide for those people.

but the nation is filled with those who cannot take care of their own needs because of circumstances beyond their control. that group is especially comprised of the mentally and physically handicapped
for that retarded person who is also aged and infirm, and now without a family, having out-survived them, is your charity taking care of them?
in short, your response - such that it is - is a cop out
sticking heads in the sand does not make that problem go away

And children of irresponsible parents, oh I just LOVE that heart string pulling lame ass argument. What group of people get the most federal money and support today? Poor black families.

How's that been working out?

actually, you are wrong. white families receive most of the welfare dollars expended by the federal sector. but this is not a racial issue, it is an economic one: funding those who - thru no fault of their own - are unable to take care of themselves
i do notice that you are without any thoughts how the poor kids with irresponsible (if existent) parents are supposed to have their essential needs met without government assistance
admittedly this is a pet peeve, where i notice those who are opposed to abortion are also often those who are opposed to assisting those same children who are born into poverty when the abortion option was not exercised

 

[The Uncola]

(snip)

actually, you are wrong. white families receive most of the welfare dollars expended by the federal sector. but this is not a racial issue, it is an economic one: funding those who - thru no fault of their own - are unable to take care of themselves
i do notice that you are without any thoughts how the poor kids with irresponsible (if existent) parents are supposed to have their essential needs met without government assistance
admittedly this is a pet peeve, where i notice those who are opposed to abortion are also often those who are opposed to assisting those same children who are born into poverty when the abortion option was not exercised

The majority of the self-righteous "pro-lifers" have this same attitude. All of their extremist "heartfelt" cries of "save the innocent babies" that start at conception, quickly disappear at birth. Their real motives are thus, transparently obvious.

 

[Renae]

There is my point. If all states dont offer the same services, they then move to Maine. This is not fair for maine, why should they take care of people living in Virgiana?

They CHOOSE to do so.

An american should be able to have the right for the same HC services nationwide.

They DO. They just don't have the right to force the peopel of that state to PAY for the service if the people have chosen through their elected Reps NOT TOO.

PS
some of you are really thin skined. I wanted to say, that I didnt take his scarcasism seriously because I knew the poster was very conservative and the text sound like something a college stundent would have written.

I never said I hate America, Im just as critical on the same issues as you are, for different reasons.

You claim I sound like a college student yet you haven't looked in a mirror.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

The majority of the self-righteous "pro-lifers" have this same attitude. All of their extremist "heartfelt" cries of "save the innocent babies" that start at conception, quickly disappear at birth. Their real motives are thus, transparently obvious.

I don't think you are right, nor do you specify their "real motives", here is how I see it:

Protect the unborn
When they are born provide education and safety nets
At some point the individual needs to accept personal responsibility (the govt. can't do everything for you)

So, the real motives are to protect the unborn, provide adequate systems for them to advance, if they ignore those systems its on them.

Easy as that.

 

[justabubba]

I don't think you are right, nor do you specify their "real motives", here is how I see it:

Protect the unborn
When they are born provide education and safety nets
At some point the individual needs to accept personal responsibility (the govt. can't do everything for you)

So, the real motives are to protect the unborn, provide adequate systems for them to advance, if they ignore those systems its on them.

Easy as that.

you need to keep up. there is a lot in this thread you have missed
those opposed to federal assistance assume that charity will take care of the needs of the infirm and the kids born into poverty
which ignores the facts that it has not historically done that
they anti-welfare proponents would tell us that government's responsibility ends other than the provision of these essential services:

A legal system that treats all fairly.

A tax system that treats all fairly.

Fire, EMS and Police services for emergencies.

Anything else you should provide for yourself.

seems those children born into poverty, when the abortion option was ignored, would now be without food, shelter, clothes, medical attention, if they were unfortunate to have irresponsible parents. and they would have no reasonable access to those necessities of life would those of your ilk prevail
no thanks

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

you need to keep up. there is a lot in this thread you have missed
those opposed to federal assistance assume that charity will take care of the needs of the infirm and the kids born into poverty
which ignores the facts that it has not historically done that
they anti-welfare proponents would tell us that government's responsibility ends other than the provision of these essential services:




seems those children born into poverty, when the abortion option was ignored, would now be without food, shelter, clothes, medical attention, if they were unfortunate to have irresponsible parents. and they would have no reasonable access to those necessities of life would those of your ilk prevail
no thanks

Ahh, yes, sorry - that I agree with, charity isn't enough for those in extreme disadvantage.

Protect the unborn and born.. up to a point as I do think personal responsibility is a factor over age 18. But, unfortunately some people are just a lost cause, only because NOTHING can help the situation other than taking the child from bad parents and replacing with good parents (i.e. not going to happen)

So the question becomes, how much can the govt. do? Promoting economics that benefit the masses is about the best thing they can do overall. (the opposite of what has happened the last 30 years)

food, shelter, clothes, medical attention - all should be classified the same as EMS, fire etc. up to a certain age (17-18ish i think)

 

[Geo Patric]

Benny,

great idea for a thread. Generally, i agree with most of your conclusions. Maybe not a car, really, if you live in a city with decent public transportation.

it temps the exploration very controversial philosophical matters, what those supposed icons of property and liberty, John Locke and John Stewart Mill really thought - how anything can be said to belong to anyone, what right any person has to make a claim on necessities... charity as oppression....

or... perhaps not.

geo.

 

[lizzie]

and what of those who are physically and/or mentally afflected and incapable of self reliance?

Family, friends, churches, charity organizations.

how about the kids born into poverty, the children of irresponsible parents?

Stop paying the irresponsible for having babies. It's just like teaching children to be responsible. You don't reward their irresponsibility, and they cease the behavior as a general rule.

 

[Renae]

but the nation is filled with those who cannot take care of their own needs because of circumstances beyond their control. that group is especially comprised of the mentally and physically handicapped
for that retarded person who is also aged and infirm, and now without a family, having out-survived them, is your charity taking care of them?
in short, your response - such that it is - is a cop out
sticking heads in the sand does not make that problem go away

Got any numbers to go with your assertions that the country is "Filled" with people incapable of survival without government help? What's that? No you don't? I didn't think you did.

And yes, many charities are there to help people who cannot help themselves. In the end though, guess what? Life ain't fair, and sometimes people get **** on. Even with all your "social welfare" people fall through the cracks.

actually, you are wrong. white families receive most of the welfare dollars expended by the federal sector. but this is not a racial issue, it is an economic one: funding those who - thru no fault of their own - are unable to take care of themselves
i do notice that you are without any thoughts how the poor kids with irresponsible (if existent) parents are supposed to have their essential needs met without government assistance
admittedly this is a pet peeve, where i notice those who are opposed to abortion are also often those who are opposed to assisting those same children who are born into poverty when the abortion option was not exercised

That's really not the point. The actual number I found was 33%, you are correct and I stand corrected. However, regardless, how well hs that worked out?

 

[justabubba]

Family, friends, churches, charity organizations.

the 'let somebody else deal with the problems of the afflicted and the children born into poverty' solution
and yet, while charity, family and friends do mitigate the problem for some, the problem still exists for many more
and the provision of basic sustenance remains a continuing problem even after the government intervention to aid their limited circumstance
and yet you side with those who would take federal assistance away from the least among us
throw away your WWJD bracelet

Stop paying the irresponsible for having babies. It's just like teaching children to be responsible. You don't reward their irresponsibility, and they cease the behavior as a general rule.

almost literally a 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' "solution"
so, your proposal to deal with those having children they cannot care for, is to quit providing public assistance. to quit providing food, shelter, clothing, medicine for the kids who are born into poverty ... the basic necessities of life
a stunningly insipid argument you have posed

 

[justabubba]

Got any numbers to go with your assertions that the country is "Filled" with people incapable of survival without government help? What's that? No you don't? I didn't think you did.

haven't had a need to research their numbers
i operate a soup kitchen and see the struggling poor on a regular basis. knowing their exact number is not essential to recogning that they are many

And yes, many charities are there to help people who cannot help themselves. In the end though, guess what? Life ain't fair, and sometimes people get **** on. Even with all your "social welfare" people fall through the cracks.

and that is my point. even the present amount of public assistance is inadequate to provide for those who need it ... to those who are needy through no fault of their own. and yet, you would terminate that public assistance. you advocate de-funding government programs that serve the least among us
you must return your WWJD bracelet, too

That's really not the point. The actual number I found was 33%, you are correct and I stand corrected. However, regardless, how well hs that worked out?

no, race was not the point of this topic, but i'm glad you now recognize that poor white recipients receive the largest portion of federal public assistance
rather than ask how that is working out, i would suggest you instead ponder how their circumstance would be further diminished if government assistance was withdrawn, as you have presented

 

[lizzie]

the 'let somebody else deal with the problems of the afflicted and the children born into poverty' solution
and yet, while charity, family and friends do mitigate the problem for some, the problem still exists for many more

Yes, let somebody who is involved with or otherwise personally vested in these individuals take care of the problems. It cannot always be the answer, but it most certainly can be in many circumstances.

throw away your WWJD bracelet

Sorry, but that manipulation doesn't work with me. What Jesus would have done has no bearing on what I would or should do. He also said "let the dead bury the dead". Does this mean that we should leave our deceased friends and loved ones where they lay?

almost literally a 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' "solution"
so, your proposal to deal with those having children they cannot care for, is to quit providing public assistance.

Yes. These people are like children who never grow up. Society is enabling their bad choices. I would venture a guess that when these people were placed in the position of having to sink or swim, they would quickly learn to swim. They have basic human instincts for survival and meeting their own needs, but we never let them test the waters. We pat them on the head, and in effect tell them they are inferior humans. This is doing them a great disservice. We treat them like they are incapable of doing for themselves- is it any wonder they don't?

 

[Wiseone]

The more something is a necessity, the more inelastic it is. The more of a luxury it is, the more elastic it is.

 

[justabubba]

Yes, let somebody who is involved with or otherwise personally vested in these individuals take care of the problems. It cannot always be the answer, but it most certainly can be in many circumstances.

but as we can see in the present demand, which exceeds supply, even with the public assistance being provided, reliance on charity, family and friends is inadequate ... and too many who need assistance wind up not receiving it

Sorry, but that manipulation doesn't work with me. What Jesus would have done has no bearing on what I would or should do. He also said "let the dead bury the dead". Does this mean that we should leave our deceased friends and loved ones where they lay?

not surprised you would not heed Christ's message about failing the least among you, and how that reflects upon the society which ignores their need

Yes. These people are like children who never grow up. Society is enabling their bad choices. I would venture a guess that when these people were placed in the position of having to sink or swim, they would quickly learn to swim. They have basic human instincts for survival and meeting their own needs, but we never let them test the waters. We pat them on the head, and in effect tell them they are inferior humans. This is doing them a great disservice. We treat them like they are incapable of doing for themselves- is it any wonder they don't?

this is worse yet. you seem either unable or too indifferent to recognize that by cutting off the public assistance to the parents you are also denying the innocent children, the ones unfortunate to be born into poverty, access to life's basic necessities
so much for 'compassionate conservatism'. as usual, we again find that it is neither compassionate nor conservative