Home

Join

Main Menu

IB HOT LINK

Listen to Abdul in the Morning on WXNT 1430 AM

Recent Comments

Links

FOLLOW IB

Indiana Barrister Facebook Page

Indiana Barrister Twitter Feed

CLOTHE THE POOR, DON’T STYLE THEM

I took that line from the book “Parliament of Whores”.  It’s about 17 years old, but it’s still relevant today.  It was written by political satirist P.J. O’Rourke.  In his book he argues (tongue and cheek) that there is no poverty in America.  I agree.

I bring this up because Hillary Clinton has called for the creation of a “Poverty Czar” to deal with the nation’s poverty problem.  From what I’ve been able to gather, the number of poor people in the country has stayed pretty much same (as a percentage) for the past 150 years so I don’t see what the big deal is.

Let me show you some math.  According to the 2002 census there were 6.8 million families living in poverty, that amounts to about 32 million people.   To live in poverty, the federal government says you and your family of three to four need to make about   $19,000 a year.  If you make more than that, according to the federal government, you’re not in poverty anymore.  You won’t be staying at the Trump Towers, but you ain’t in poverty.

The general belief is that a family living in poverty makes about $7,200 less than the poverty figure.  That means someone needs to find them $7,200 and they are no longer in poverty.  They’re poor, but not in poverty.  Take that average $7,200 x 6.8 million families and that means you need $48,960,000,000 to get the poor in America out of poverty.

And since I am compassionate, I’ll make it an even $50 billion.

Now let’s see what’s being spent on people in poverty in this country; food stamps, energy assistance, earned income tax credits, housing assistance, Medicaid and anything else you can think of.

When you add it all up it’s easily $106 billion and change.  And it’s all tax free at that.  So if people living in poverty need $50 billion to get out of poverty and the government is  spending $106 billion, that’s an extra $56 billion for people in poverty.  Take that $56 billion and divide amongst 6.8 million families that’s an extra $8,200 a household.  Who couldn’t use an extra eight grand in their pocketbook.

This doesn’t even include the fact that many people in “poverty” have homes, cell phones, cars and live better than 75-percent of the rest of the country.  And here’s an interesting thought, the more education you have and more stable family you come from, the less likely you are to have a life of poverty.  Imagine that.

All this goes to prove the fact that no matter how much you spend you will always have the poor.  I do recall a famous carpenter saying that a couple thousand years ago.

Funny how those words still ring true today.

  • Blah Blah Blah
    WOW!!! All i hear from you people is blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You all want to gripe about the Food Stamps and assistance for the POOR!!! What happens when your husband gets cancer at 24 and the Chemotherapy and Radiation aren't a "necessity" according to your insurance company and you have to pay for that out of pocket? Even the rich at some point have their low points. Not every person in America is mooching the system. Some of us don't have any other choice. Wait until something devastating happens in your family and you CAN'T pay your bills then come back and read your ignorant posts. There definiately needs to be more in depth interviewing when giving out assistance and there needs to be more follow up....but then it just makes it harder for the people who actually need it.... I RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS FOR OUR TWO CHILDREN...WHICH I HAD WHEN MY HUSBAND WAS WORKING FULL TIME AS AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER FOR THE UNION. I USED TO OWN MY OWN BUSINESS AND I HAVE A BACHELORS IN MARKETING. But to all you people who have a problem with the fact that THE MONEY THAT I HAVE PAID OUT IN TAXES IS NOW GOING TO FEED MY FAMILY SO MY HUSBAND CAN RECEIVE HIS TREATMENT AND WHO KNOWS MAYBE EVEN SURVIVE CAN SHOVE THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT. Just because my husband is sick means that my children are less deserving than any other kids in the world. They shouldn't be able to watch their favorite cartoons on the television which I pay $15 a month for cable so that maybe if I turn up the Television loud enough they can't hear their dad crying. Or maybe my daughter doesn't deserve lunch at school because her mom can't pay for it. O yea and don't forget that cell phone that I have just in case I have to call an ambulance....which I pay $50 a month for. YOU GO WITHOUT FOOD, A PHONE, TELEVISION, GAS IN YOUR CAR, EVEN UTILITIES FOR A DAY. Come on people, you make America Look Bad. I did it all by the book. Things happen that you don't expect. O yea and by the way I can't retire until I'm about 80 because I had to spend that money too and I work 2 jobs.....Think about it and then ask yourself if what you wrote on here is fair for the people at poverty level as a whole......
  • I want to live in a compassionate society, not a stupid one. When social programs provide incentives for remaining dependent upon government (another expression of 'enslaved'), then we are NOT a compassionate society at all. There can be no greater demonstration of our disdain for our fellow man than to keep him in the chains of dependency.

    Our liberal socialists make me sick; they really do.
  • Outstater
    Didn't we start the War on Poverty with an assignment of the Poverty Limit as the line that puts 10% of the people in poverty.

    All the findings since then have been based on that 10%, and lo and behold, we have 10% poverty. For 44 years, we have been within a point or two.

    Good analysis on the $$$ needed to win the war on poverty. Rush did something today comparing Obama and Clinton's words on the war in Iraq with our success in the war on Poverty. Time to declare failure and withdraw the funds.
  • MissouriDemocrat
    I realize that sometimes I dont sound very much like a democrat but I recall a democrat president whose wife is running for president saying he would end welfare as we know it. It sure seems that welfare as we know it ended and it got worse. If they have no medical ailments the mere fact they had kids shuold not entitle them to live on the public welfare rolls. Their kids should be taken by the state and they should be forced to work. That of course after a reasonable amount of time is afforded them to get gainful employment and child care. You play you pay. If you have children, are able bodied (except for your obvious drug addictions) then you have to work for a living like the rest of the country, oh i forgot, a ton of those don't work do they?
  • Jon G
    Maybe the "welfare system" should work this way. If you can afford cable TV, a cell phone, 21" rims and who knows how many children you aren't allowed benefits because, obviously you can afford housing, food and health care. After all, don't we all prioritize and pay for the necessities of life before we spend the left over money?
  • Taxpayer 834512
    Agreed, again. But, by putting citizens first, and then having expectations of citizenship include: responsible behavior, punishing or at least not enabling irresponsible behavior, and community service including volunteer work to the needy, there is a reasonable moral standing and greater clout to lessen the burden of the semi-mandatory entitlements we bear now. Otherwise, we remain "racist", "sexist", and "haters".
  • MissouriDemocrat
    I read about all this assistance for the people below poverty level and it causes me to think about a client for who I am Representative Payee for his SSI benefits (Disabled Mental Health). Several years ago when we were applying for Food Stamp Benefits for him he was limited to 10.00 per month. His total monthly benefit amount is 897.00 per month and he is disqualified except that the law mandates 10.00 per month for him. Now with so many able bodied people drawing simply because they didn't use a condom and got pregnant and due to no child care they say that they can't become part of the working public it causes me to wonder why is it that he any less worthy to eat? Now I am a good democrat right? I am supposed to have great empathy for the poor, etc. Well frankly I do not have any empathy for a generation of week kneed citizens that think its better to draw benefits over working.
  • Moneyguy
    Come on Jay the Cartoon Channel is educational? Or better yet CSPAN?
  • Jay
    I don't have a blog anymore so I'll drop this nugget here -

    a) Most kids that attend IPS get free or discount lunch at school. Like 80% + at Arlington.

    b) Look at the households in IPS, and look at the ones that have a kid that gets a free lunch, and I bet half those households have cable TV.

    But it's politically incorrect to ask why people's kids need a free lunch when their homes are wired for cable. It's "unfeeling".

    So basically people who pay taxes thru the nose like me that don't have cable, are forced to subsidize Brighthouse.

    And don't EVEN tell me cable TV is educational. Puh-lease.
  • Let's see; that poverty level looks like it leaves your family of 4 with a bit less than:

    $1,600 - month
    ---------------
    $500 - rent
    $250 - health insurance
    $150 - utilities
    $100 - car
    $100 - gas
    $50 - car insurance
    $??? - child care (only if you need 2 incomes)

    Heck, presuming you don't get sick and need to pay a deductible or your car doesn't break down or need an oil change or something or no other unexpected expenses come up (and I haven't left out or underestimated any necessities), each person has upwards of $4 per day to clothe and feed themselves.

    I don't think the poverty level is a terribly realistic measure of anything. As I recall, a woman in the federal government made up the index on her own initiative as sort of a hobby, and the method of determining the poverty level hasn't changed much since.

    Ah, here it is; (gotta love Wikipedia):
    "The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes. The “three-times-the-cost-of-the-food-plan” calculation was done only once, for the 1963 base year poverty thresholds, using the Agriculture Department’s economy food plan. Poverty thresholds for years since 1963 have been updated for price changes only using the Consumer Price Index."

    Incidentally, from that Wikipedia article, the poverty line for a family of 4 is $21,200. At any given time, apparently, about 12% of the population falls below the poverty line. One of the problems is that it's not the *same* 12% from year-to-year. Apparently a larger percentage of the population goes through cycles above and below the line.
  • anonymous
    There will always be the poor.
  • thundermutt
    This was the concept behind the Earned Income Credit (formerly known as "negative income tax" in the 1970s, when the failures of "The War On Poverty" became apparent): The most efficient bureaucracy in Washington is the IRS, so let's put them in charge of giving money to the poor directly.
  • Taxpayer 834512
    Too many facts and too little optimism. You may not run for President.
  • But Abdul, you miss the 50% that is probably lost in the bureaucracy to administer these programs.
    .
    Oh wait, that is still more than the $50 billion you need....
  • Mr. 7th District
    Hillary and to some extent Carson pander to the poor and greatly exagerate the extent of poverty. I think this might be called populism. I call it bull s--t politics.
blog comments powered by Disqus