OP-ED COLUMNIST - Shhh, Don't Say 'Poverty' [Bob Herbert Hates America]

New York Times ^ | November 22, 2004 | BOB HERBERT

[rabidralph]

Many of them are full-time workers, and some have more than one job.

And yet, you can drive through poor neighborhoods in DC and see Navigators and Escalades with rim jobs worth more than some cars.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I read elsewehere that most of our poor are third world immigrants.

[UltraKonservativen]

Poor families...That's the new "talking point" this week. NPR went on and on about that this morning.
You know where they are going with this line when the word "UNDEFUNDED" gets repeated 20 times in fifteen minutes like a mantra.

They are preparing for Bush making tax cuts permanent.

[durasell]

Teachers have them for six hours a day. The street has them for 18. Which do you think has a better chance of winning them over?

[valkyrieanne]

Article: That particular example of compassionate conservatism came to mind as I looked over a report from the Department of Agriculture showing that more than 12 million American families continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves.

Excuse me? Who's yapping endlessly about fat people? Now it's a conservative plot to pretend that there are all these fat poor people out there? Whatever happened to the so-called "obesity epidemic?" I suppose statistics on the correlation between obesity and poverty will now get shoved under the rug, along with all the other incompatible statistics like correlations between poverty and low IQ, poverty and out-of-wedlock births, etc.

Does this mean we can all go back to our cheese-and-jalapeno nachos without the liberal Fat Police breathing down our necks?

[Okies love Dubya 2]

Stuff like this really gets me ticked off...

There is NO reason that anyone in America should go hungry, with all the gov't assistance, private charities, and the like. Our parish will give food to people who need it, and does so all the time. We know people who send their kids to public schools, and the school is always trying to sign up their kids for the 'free lunch' program. This family is middle class with their own home and two cars--they can obviously pay for their own kids' food, and they always tell the school that. The school says 'it doesn't matter, they can still get a free lunch.' They drop off their kids at school, only to see the other kids being drop off for the free breakfast program, their parents driving nicer cars than most of us have and the kids wearing nicer clothes than my own kids wear.

When we first married, we were pretty broke, husband was an E-4 in the military and we lived in S. California. We lived in the not-so-nice area of town because it is what we could afford; we used double coupons and frequent shopper cards to stretch our grocery money; we didn't eat out much; and we drove an older pickup truck. We qualified for food stamps, but we didn't take them and somehow we ate and had a roof over our heads. Looking back now, we did pretty well considering we didn't have a lot of money.

It's pretty sad that when our poorest poor have cable television, cars, and homes, they still complain. What do they call the children in third world countries who can only dream of having a home, three meals a day, and decent clothes? They should be on their knees every night thanking God that they live in the USA and not some hell-hole in Africa. But all we hear about is how people are 'starving' here in America.

I also noticed we didn't hear a damn thing about this when x42 was in office, did we?

[valkyrieanne]

I'm sorry, a lot of things in that article (#17) don't wash. For instance, the one woman who is "always hungry" worked in bakeries and fast food restaurants? I have *never* known either one that didn't give free meals and/or discount or leftover food to their employees. Further, the minimum wage is still $5.15 an hour, and if someone is *truly* working 50 hours a week, that's $250 a week! $1000 a month! In Appalachia, mind you, where the cost of living for housing is rock-bottom low.

Further reality checks: "These people wouldn't know what to do with a 10 lb bag of oats." Say what? It's called get a pot and boil the water. They're showing them at this food center how to make "no bake cookies," but they can't show them how to make oatmeal, which is a perfectly nutritious breakfast.

So the people live so far away from "civilization" they "can't get to a food bank." From what I've seen of rural W. Virginia, people smoke like chimneys. They're obviously able to get cigarettes, so they're travelling *somehow.* Besides, if you live that far away, what's with not gardening or hunting? Raising a pig or goat?

This article lists one sob story after another, but it doesn't hang together. Maybe we're not talking a poverty problem - maybe we're talking a true, serious problem with *mental retardation.* That's another story altogether.

[valkyrieanne]

If true, I would wager that most of these people are illegal immigrants.

I don't think so. Illegal immigrants know how to cook. I see Mexican families (not necessarily illegal) all the time around here at the places where I shop. They shop at the cheapest stores; they're very frugal. They buy 50-lb sacks of rice and beans; tomatoes and peppers by the box; fruits and vegetables off the discount bins. They probably feed their families on a tenth of what most Americans spend. I don't like *illegal* immigration, but one point in these folks' favor is that they know how to make a dollar squeak. It's just these virtues that the both the rural & urban American poor seem to have lost long ago.

[freespirited]

The federal government has not raised the minimum wage since 1997

Right, Bob. And that is only because members of Congress are big bad meanies doing the bidding of evil corporations. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law of unintended consequences--concern that raising the minimum wage would result in some minimum wage earners actually losing their jobs because their employers could not afford the increase.

[ccmay]

Maybe we're not talking a poverty problem - maybe we're talking a true, serious problem with *mental retardation.*

No, we're talking about sheer laziness, thugs with no job who wear $300 sneaks, and spendthrifts who would buy a carton of cigs before putting food on their kids' table.

-ccm

[Little Ray]

Fruit Loops and any "brand name" cereals are expensive, but if you buy the store brand, the price is nearly halved... The same is true of lots of other food items.

There used to be something called the "macaroni and cheese index." Don't know if still exists. It measured poverty. Mac 'n Cheese is cheap, filling and tastes good so, when consumption goes up, it means there is a problem.

This might be in interesting read Nickel and Dimed:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805063889/qid=1101139648/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2106495-8894505?v=glance&s=books

Though anybody who think you can make it alone on $6 per hour is silly.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Proposal:

New Reality TV series: "Poverty Princes"

Over several months, a group of contestants is each forced to live on a fast-food or similar minimum wage job. No starting savings, nothing other than one change of clothes. No government benefits no available to all citizens (bus pass OK, food stamps not.) After three months, the winner is the one with the best lifestyle.

In the process, the viewers (including the couch-potato "poor") could learn some valuable lessons in how to live well on modest means, simply by being resourceful. (Second-hand clothes, finding a roommate, living near the bus line, not living in Manhattan, learning to take ingredients, and cook them.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

Though anybody who think you can make it alone on $6 per hour is silly.

---

Utter nonsense. $6/hour requires a roommate, not living in a trendy city, buying second hand clothes, and living near the busline. No cable, no cigs, no beer, unless you want to put in some extra hours. And no getting pregnant.

Millions do it, and some even save money while they do it.

I'd love to hear your minimal budget that you think couldn't be covered by the minimum wage

[Little Ray]

That was my point. Six bucks per hour means needing a roomate. Two live much cheaper together than alone. Getting married and buying a house actually put me a little ahead, though part of it is that I don't spend so much money on books and restaurants anymore - too busy kiddie wrangling.

[Razorism]

As Paul Harvey says "now the rest of the story",undoubtedly there are some hungry people in America, however the basis for this story is answering yes to three of following questions. It would not take much for most(note these questions concern money and not food stamps or food aid) to answer yes over the past 12 months: Economic Research Service/USDA Household Food Security in the United States, 2002/FANRR-35 ✥ 3(and later years) Questions Used To Assess the Food Security of Households in the CPS Food Security Survey 1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 5. (If yes to Question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months? 6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because you couldn’t afford enough food? (Yes/No) 8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because you didn’t have enough money for food? (Yes/No) 9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 10. (If yes to Question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months? (Questions 11-18 are asked only if the household included children age 0-18) 11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? (Yes/No) 16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 17. (If yes to Question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months? 18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

[jordan8]

A huge percentage of these people are immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. What's more, the large influx of surplus labor suppresses the wages of the working class, thus spreading poverty. This influx, combined with misguided housing laws, also drive up the housing costs of the native poor by driving them out of their traditional areas. The left causes a problem and then uses the problems they cause to glean more power.

[Razorism]

Further reading of the document reveals that only .07% of those with children were hungry:
"Prevalences of Food Insecurity
and Hunger—National
Conditions and Trends
Eighty-nine percent of U.S. households were food
secure throughout the entire year 2002 (fig. 1). “Food
secure” means that all household members had access
at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.5
The remaining 12.1 million U.S. households (11.1 percent
of all households) were food insecure at some
time during the year. That is, they were uncertain of
having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all
household members because they had insufficient
money and other resources for food. About two-thirds
of food-insecure households avoided hunger, in many
cases by relying on a few basic foods and reducing
variety in their diets. But 3.8 million households (3.5
percent of all U.S. households) were food insecure to
the extent that one or more household members were
hungry, at least some time during the year, because
they couldn’t afford enough food.
In most households, children were protected from substantial
reductions in food intake and ensuing hunger.
However, in some 265,000 households (0.7 percent of
households with children), food insecurity was sufficiently
severe that 1 or more children in each household
were also hungry on 1 or more days during the
year because the household lacked money for enough
food."

[68skylark]

I agree with what you wrote.

I would gladly live for a year or longer on a $6 an hour salary if, by doing so, I could shut up all the people who whine and moan about how hard it is to live in mean, cruel America.

The truth is, $6 an hour buys a very well-to-do standard of living by any world standard -- it puts someone in the top 20% to 25% of the world.

American is a Garden of Eden compared to anywhere else in the world. I feel sorry for people like Herbet who can only see doom and gloom. And I get angry when the want to tear apart the traditions that made us so great.