Society softens sting of poverty

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | January 9, 2006 | Editorial

[Graybeard58]

In the name of compassion, America has spent trillions fighting poverty. Connecticut's social-services budget alone is approaching $5 billion a year, yet poverty persists because income redistribution and government giveaways are the most ineffective ways of lifting all boats.

Poverty hustlers harp on how grinding poverty is, but a Christian Science Monitor report, "Poverty now comes with a color TV," shows how "the poor" have never had it so good.

According to Census Bureau data released in December, low-income households are experiencing "an ever-growing material prosperity, with formerly high-dollar luxury items now commonplace," the Monitor said. Wealth remains stratified, but as economists note, a "poor person" with an education and work ethic can expect to be much better off in 10 years and perhaps be among "the rich" by retirement.

But even while in poverty, most low-income people won't suffer as the poor in Third World nations do. That's because the rich-poor lifestyle gap in America has narrowed significantly, economist Michael Cosgrove told the Monitor. "It amazes me the number of people who are at or near the poverty line (who) have color TVs, cable, washer, dryer, microwave," he said. "The conveniences they have are in fact pretty good."

Indeed, the bureau said nearly all impoverished Americas have at least one color TV and two-thirds own air conditioners.

But if "poor people" can afford a color TV and cable, why is government -- taxpayers -- paying for their children's school lunches? If "poor people" can afford computers with Internet access, why is government giving them health benefits that are better than what most working families have? And if "poor people" can afford cell phones, automatic dishwashers, air conditioners, etc., why is government subsidizing their housing and incomes?

This faux compassion only prolongs poverty by addicting the poor to government largess. Society has an obligation to help those who can't help themselves. But before the government gives one cent to anyone, it is obliged to find out whether the would-be recipient has the means to take care of himself and ensure that the "free money from the government" will be spent on necessities, not luxuries.

[Awestruck]

The government gives health care to those who won't work, but won't subsidize health care for some of its own employees (myself included).

[Jack of all Trades]

This was printed in Connecticut? With actual ink?

[Graybeard58]

The "Waterbury Republican-American" is one of the most conservative news papers in the country.

[Realism]

Color TVs, internet access and cell phones are very cheap - decent health care, education and childcare (necessary for single parents to earn a living wage) are expensive, and require the kind of long term commitment effort from both the poor and the society at large that neither appear to willing to take on.

Well said..........

[saveliberty]

I think that at least 6 months ago, the Wall St Journal published stats.

74% owned a washer
two thirds owned at least one car
one third owned a second car

I don't recall the rest. I do recall Ceci Connelly harping on how bad the economy was. That's hard to listen to especially when it was Moynihan who was pilloried when he found that welfare programs backfire.

[Billthedrill]

One has to remember that "poverty" as the popular media treat it is measured with respect to the context of the local economy - the poorest 20% are poor by definition and not by a comparison to their counterparts elsewhere in the world or especially elsewhen in history. I noted this last month in rereading Woodham-Smith's The Great Hunger, which dealt with the Irish famine of the 1840's - prior to the crop failure 2000 Irish starved to death in a "normal" year and nobody turned a hair. And the rest of Europe was no different.

God forbid we should ever see real poverty again in this country because I don't think the country would make it.

[squarebarb]

From the headline I thought the article was going to say something profound;

Like: What poor people really lack is a decent societal culture.

[A. Pole]

two thirds owned at least one car one third owned a second car

In USA the car is a necessity (with the exception of inner cities where you can go around on a bus, this one third without a car probably lives there).

Two cars might mean, that one is still running and other is being fixed.

In older times poor people could have a horse or two and a wagon.

[Chuckster]

Two cars might mean, that one is still running and other is being fixed.

Or that one is up on blocks in the front yard for parts. d;^)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"...decent health care, education and childcare (necessary for single parents to earn a living wage) are expensive, and require the kind of long term commitment effort from both the poor and the society at large that neither appear to willing to take on."

You're pretty smart for a Newbie. Couldn't have said it better, myself. ;)

The self-induced "problem" of poverty in this country is never going to go away. If you have any brains about you, best to just hunker down, live below your means, work and live "off the grid" as much as possible, hide your money in your mattress, be up to date on your current tax burden, work to thwart taxes in any legal way that you can, and quit feeding the cancerous tumor (our government) with your hard-earned dollars.

Works for me. :)

[traviskicks]

More on this, inclduing two charts and graphs:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/the_poor.htm