Muscatine

Be careful not to

confuse the ''so called poor'' with actual poverty. As I alluded to in another post, there are many families with misguided priorities. They have cell phones, iPods, nice cars, etc. but are unable to pay their utility bills or their rent. That's not poverty, that's an inability or unwillingness to be responsible about your finances. What I'm talking about is those who truly live in poverty. Single parents who have little to no education working two or three jobs to make ends meet. The homeless come to mind when I think of poverty.

I think there are a lot of people/families who we would consider to be living in poverty simply because of the way they dress or the house they live in or the financial straits they have put themselves in, but when it comes to true poverty...

Ultimately, I don't see any difference between poverty in the fifties and poverty today. It's just that poverty is measured differently today by the availability of goods. The post seemed to indicate that because today's poor have certain goods that weren't available in the past that they were obviously better off. I disagree. By definition, poverty is still poverty and those living in poverty are still unable to afford the goods necessary to live.

Maybe what the post should have said is that we've got a lot of people in this country who can't manage their finances and currently find themselves in a perpetual state of self-induced monetary shortfalls. That I could agree with.

So what are you saying?

That there really aren't any poor people? It's all just a ploy used by liberals in an attempt to gain power?

Shrinking middle class

While poverty is as much poverty today as it was in yesteryear, the real problem, as JOS mentioned earlier is the gap between rich and poor. We need a strong middle class, as all countries really do, and we are seeing that middle shrink:

Moving on Down

The table shown here is updated to reflect the latest Census figures, and shows both the one-year change for 2003, and also the three-year change from 2000 to 2003 (covering the period since Bush took office.) The income figures are adjusted for inflation, and shown in 2003 dollars.

Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households.

At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years.

Furthermore, that process did not stop in 2003 despite the resumption of job growth in September and 4.4% growth in the economy as measured by Gross Domestic Product. The middle-income group lost 0.4 percentage points in 2003.

The upper-income group -- those with income over $75,000 a year -- has also suffered since Bush took office, declining by 0.4 percentage points over three years. However, upper-income households bounced back a bit last year, by two-tenths of a percentage point, and now are back at just over 26% of all households.

So by this measure, the ''middle class'' continued to shrink in 2003 , and while some ''middle class'' households moved to the upper-income group, a larger proportion moved down.

http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html

real poverty

those in terrible conditions like the homeless (a large portion who are mentally ill and lost - and for the most part have been discarded by society) deserve more help than they get. But that is not all of the 35 million that was mentioned. i'm not sure what the number is of real poverty - 5 million?

the rest of the poor has some movement in it like the post says - 10 years later a % are no longer poor. these are the ones helped by subsidized social programs, and many use it to make a better life for themselves. there remains a permanent underclass that do not help themselves. they are a drag on everyone else.

i agree that a growing income distribution disparity is not good for a healthy society. i think it could be one sign of a declining culture.