If You Own An Xbox -- Or An Air Conditioner -- Can You Still Be Considered Poor?

[Brewman_Jax]

http://www.alternet.org/vision/151727/if...qus_thread

From the article:

Quote:Poverty is one of the least flashy issues in political discourse, but it seems to be getting a renewed focus--at least in some circles. Unfortunately, President Obama’s attempt to focus on the 30 million Americans living in poverty through anti-poverty initiatives got trampled on by Republicans. While the legislation approaches its second stage of voting, there’s little hope that, even if the measures get approved, they would have much of an impact.

Despite that disappointment, two different outlets have recently investigated the changing face of America's poor -- and only one gets it right.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, released a report called “Redefining Poverty.” It starts off with a simplistic focus on the material wealth of most Americans, saying they live in relative luxury and that even through Americans' own understanding of poverty (homelessness, hungry people wandering the streets as reported by another survey in the foundation's report), the number of the actual poor are far less than the US Census Bureau would have us believe.

Using graphs and illustrations from 2005, the Heritage Foundation's report seeks to prove that ownership of modern amenities such as cable TV, Xboxes, microwaves and air conditioners is reason to believe that “living standards [of the poor] are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.”

Right. We’ll ignore the fact that the survey used in the Heritage Foundation's report is from the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), and it measures just that -- consumption, not ownership. That credit can give the illusion of owning without ownership. We’ll also ignore that the 30 million figure is a low-ball estimate -- 47.8 million is the number sited by the Census Bureau since it updated its poverty formula. We’ll also ignore that asking American citizens to measure their own class status has been proven useless, as most Americans who think they're middle class are actually working class, and so on.

...

The article continues, but the obvious must be stated: the rabid RW and its various sub-categories have never liked the poor and powerless and anyone that is in the way of the rich and big corporations to get more. The article did not cover the racial component of poverty and the poor. Since the early 1970's, the media face of the poor shifted from white to POC, and the general attitude towards the poor changed, also. The attitude went from "the unfortunate poor, the salt of the earth" to "those sorry, lazy people that only want to live off of the government". Social spending has been under fire for decades, and even in this recent economic downturn, there's only lukewarm support for more of a social safety net. In spite of that, the repubs had no trouble letting big corporations, the airlines being the latest, walk away without paying any taxes at all.

The report makes it sound like being poor in the US ain't so bad. I'm sure if they asked some actual poor people, they might have heard different.

The Heritage Foundation report on Poverty is here http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports...in-America

[Treestar]

Those are small ticket items that don't add to one's wealth, like stocks and bonds and equities in a House. Conservatives are just cruel.

[azmouse]

Poverty is even crueler today than it used to be. Many people living in poverty have access to televisions and see endless shows where the characters have big homes, fancy furniture and clothing, and no money problems. And then there are the endless commercials for cars, jewelry, and luxury items that will be forever out of reach.

[Born_A_Truman]

The Heritage Foundation was the same group that said the Bush tax cuts would pay off the national debt and save SS!

Quote:One element of the debate over President Bush's tax plan concerns how it will affect household and government budgets as well as the U.S. economy.2 To assess the plan's economic and budgetary effects and to help frame this debate, analysts in The Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis (CDA) conducted a dynamic simulation of the proposals in the President's tax relief plan. The final results show that the Bush plan would significantly increase economic growth and family income while substantially reducing federal debt.3 For example:

Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.4

The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.

The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax.5

[jaxx]

Good find Pat! They ate those projections, but still try to say the tax cuts made it better for people. Liars.