All this contemptible, ignorant bullshit in this thread about welfare queens and bootstrapping and lazy poor folk living off the dole literally makes me ill. And coming from a bunch of white, privledged tech empowered kids it borders on the obscene. You people have no idea what your talking about, and apparently are perfectly happy to parrot the slogans that you've heard without doing any research into the actual faces and facts of poverty.
Dear Adda,
Note to yourself. When you declare that we are all rich, WHITE, and empowered. Then claim we know nothing about poverty as a result. You have thus declared that poverty is NOT RICH, NOT WHITE, and NOT privledged.
You can now see that you in fact DID bring up race, and I addressed it head on. You can imply in your cowardly way, but I'll call it directly what it is and likewise call you on what you claim.
Now I'll hit a few of your replies. But most of it is nonsense worth ignoring. You did post a link and so let's address it.
You link claims the level of poverty for a family of four is met by 38.1% of households. It claims that out of 100% of households 3.5% of them our food insecure. Food insecure is defined as not having enough food for a healthy active lifestyle on any ONE DAY of the entire year.
Talk about stretching your poor. Out of ALL THE POVERTY FAMILIES in the entire United States. 10% might be food insecure on any one day of the year. It then goes and breaks even that 3.5% down into child hunger.
Take note of the quote...
Quote:
In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 13.1 million children. Of these individuals, 6.3 million adults and 3.1 million children lived in households where someone experienced hunger during the year. However, even in households with hunger, most of the children were not hungry. In most households, children (especially younger children) are protected from hunger unless hunger among adults in the household becomes quite severe. The number of children living in households classified as "food insecure with hunger among children" was 567,000 (0.8 percent of the children in the Nation).
Note that we are now down from MILLIONS to less than one million being food insecure at any ONE TIME during the entire year. In fact we are at barely half a million children who are "food insecure."
Now take a look at how even that half a million is stretched by looking at the definition for "food insecure."
If they answer yes, even once, to any of the following criteria during an entire one year span, then they may end up classified as food insecure.
*Adults ate less than they felt they should.
*They worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more.
*The food they bought didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more.
*They couldn't afford to eat balanced meals.
So the adults gave the kids a bag of cheetos and a bean burrito. They are "food insecure." They worried about running out of food. They are "food insecure."
This isn't callousness. However taking a worry or an unbalanced or less nutritious meal and calling it millions of children starving is just a bold face lie.
I plan on more travel abroad in future but simply from my trip to Paris I can say that indeed there are poor in many countries not just the US. Any large city will contain poor people and poor live also in rural areas (again in pretty much all countries)
I would hope comments of the like in the quoted materal above are given rest here in AO.
Fellows
So true, even welfare in France will never prevent to have poors begging in the street. There is a law in France giving a minimal ressource of 350 ? per people, and there is still poor people in the streets.
There is also many people coming from others countries : east europe for example.
In reverse you will not find this begger in rural aeras. People have less money but live with dignity here.
Comments
All this contemptible, ignorant bullshit in this thread about welfare queens and bootstrapping and lazy poor folk living off the dole literally makes me ill. And coming from a bunch of white, privledged tech empowered kids it borders on the obscene. You people have no idea what your talking about, and apparently are perfectly happy to parrot the slogans that you've heard without doing any research into the actual faces and facts of poverty.
Dear Adda,
Note to yourself. When you declare that we are all rich, WHITE, and empowered. Then claim we know nothing about poverty as a result. You have thus declared that poverty is NOT RICH, NOT WHITE, and NOT privledged.
You can now see that you in fact DID bring up race, and I addressed it head on. You can imply in your cowardly way, but I'll call it directly what it is and likewise call you on what you claim.
Now I'll hit a few of your replies. But most of it is nonsense worth ignoring. You did post a link and so let's address it.
You link claims the level of poverty for a family of four is met by 38.1% of households. It claims that out of 100% of households 3.5% of them our food insecure. Food insecure is defined as not having enough food for a healthy active lifestyle on any ONE DAY of the entire year.
Talk about stretching your poor. Out of ALL THE POVERTY FAMILIES in the entire United States. 10% might be food insecure on any one day of the year. It then goes and breaks even that 3.5% down into child hunger.
Take note of the quote...
In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 13.1 million children. Of these individuals, 6.3 million adults and 3.1 million children lived in households where someone experienced hunger during the year. However, even in households with hunger, most of the children were not hungry. In most households, children (especially younger children) are protected from hunger unless hunger among adults in the household becomes quite severe. The number of children living in households classified as "food insecure with hunger among children" was 567,000 (0.8 percent of the children in the Nation).
Note that we are now down from MILLIONS to less than one million being food insecure at any ONE TIME during the entire year. In fact we are at barely half a million children who are "food insecure."
Now take a look at how even that half a million is stretched by looking at the definition for "food insecure."
If they answer yes, even once, to any of the following criteria during an entire one year span, then they may end up classified as food insecure.
*Adults ate less than they felt they should.
*They worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more.
*The food they bought didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more.
*They couldn't afford to eat balanced meals.
So the adults gave the kids a bag of cheetos and a bean burrito. They are "food insecure." They worried about running out of food. They are "food insecure."
This isn't callousness. However taking a worry or an unbalanced or less nutritious meal and calling it millions of children starving is just a bold face lie.
Taken from your own sources...
Nick
Originally posted by Fellowship
I plan on more travel abroad in future but simply from my trip to Paris I can say that indeed there are poor in many countries not just the US. Any large city will contain poor people and poor live also in rural areas (again in pretty much all countries)
I would hope comments of the like in the quoted materal above are given rest here in AO.
Fellows
So true, even welfare in France will never prevent to have poors begging in the street. There is a law in France giving a minimal ressource of 350 ? per people, and there is still poor people in the streets.
There is also many people coming from others countries : east europe for example.
In reverse you will not find this begger in rural aeras. People have less money but live with dignity here.