My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you stereotype the poor (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money on "frivolous" things?) and second that your definition of poverty is out of the mainstream, useless and wrong.
Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development at http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm "Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food insecurity' and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.) So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers from a lack of the necessitites of life. Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't figure in the top ten "poverty" states, which are 1. Mississippi 17.3% below the poverty line 2. New Mexico 17.3% 3. Louisiana 16.8% 4. District of Columbia 16.7% 4. Texas 16.7% 6. Arkansas 16.4% 7. Alabama 16.0% 7. Kentucky 16.0% 9. West Virginia 15.8% 10. North Carolina 15.1% --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't > > > respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post > was > > > and don't have time to go to it now. > > > > Here 'tis: > > > > If your point is that poverty in America is very different from > > poverty in, say, Bangladesh, of course that is true. It's obvious. > > Poverty is a relative concept. if you don't have the things that > the > > majority of people in your society have, and therefore cannot > > participate fully in that society, you are poor. > > > > > First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. > > Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the > way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, > of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. > Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have > the same things as the majority of the people in society have. > > Nor does my definition include whether or not one can "participate > fully in that society" because they don't have the things that the > majority have. > > > > > > > > That's an > > approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my > > social science classes from about 15 million years ago. > > > > You ask about deprivations. Lack of health insurance, for one, > which > > means that people see doctors less often than they should do and > need > > to do, and so lack preventive care. Inability to pay for needed > > medications is another deprivation. Choosing between food and > > medication is another. I'm sure there are many more. It's > > called "going without," and the poor quietly learn to do this, but > > that doesn't mean they are not poor. > > > > > ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies to in > America...and that is why there are no poor people. There are > social programs -- government or otherwise -- that will take care of > those essential needs. > > Now I'm going to go back and answer the questions you asked me that > I haven't yet responded to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor > > spend > > > > their money > > > > > on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that > > they "shouldn't" > > > > buy. They > > > > > should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do > not > > > > have to put up > > > > > with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within > a > > 50- > > > > mile radius who > > > > > would be happy to treat the "deserving" poor for free -- > that's > > a > > > > good one! > > > > > Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan > > fantasy? > > > > And who > > > > > decides who is "deserving"? Do YOU have to prove you > > > > are "deserving" when > > > > > you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or > > > > drink? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about the > > definition > > > > of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR question. > > > > > > > > And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for-tat with > you; > > > > the definition of poverty really is at the heart of this > debate. > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean by "poverty" whereas you know > what I > > > > mean (because I've given you my definition). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Complacent advice given by those who have much to those > > who > > > > have > > > > > > little, > > > > > > > I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized "poor but happy" > > stuff. > > > > > > What's to be happy > > > > > > > about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford > to > > go > > > > to > > > > > > the dentist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and > > I'll > > > > show > > > > > > you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes > or > > > > some > > > > > > other such thing that should NOT be a priority for > > consumption > > > > in > > > > > > his or her life. > > > > > > > > > > > > And after you weed out the 99 of 100 "poor" people that > the > > > > above > > > > > > description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 > that > > > > cannot > > > > > > genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that > > there > > > > are > > > > > > 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who > > will > > > > be > > > > > > more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving > person > > if > > > > > > they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a > social > > > > program > > > > > > by the government that will pay for it). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways > > > > > > > > > to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the > other > > > > > > > > > is to have few needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, "live simply". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
