Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/opinion/martin-gop-poverty/index.html

An opinion piece:

Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch With Roland Martin."

(CNN) -- When the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week that a record number of people were living in poverty, Republicans were quick to attach the figures to President Barack Obama, desperately trying to lay them at his feet.

But anyone with common sense knows that someone doesn't just fall into poverty overnight. The deplorable economic conditions that led to today's poverty numbers began in 2007. Republicans often ignore such facts.

Yet when you start digging deeper into the Census Bureau report, what stands out is that of the 10 poorest states in the country, most are the reddest in the nation -- solidly GOP states.

The most impoverished state is Mississippi, and it's followed by Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama and North Carolina.

Obama won North Carolina by 14,000 votes in 2008, and although West Virginia is considered a Democratic state, in presidential elections it usually goes for the Republican candidate. There is no doubt that in 2012, the GOP expects to lock up all 10 states in the presidential campaign.

Thus it would make sense that the GOP candidates would at least spend some time in the presidential debates debating the issue of poverty in these red states, and explaining what they plan to do about it.

Yeah, right.

At the June 13 CNN debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, the word "poor" was never uttered, and the only time poverty came up was when former Sen. Rick Santorum discussed his work for welfare reform.

At the September 17 debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, Rep. Ron Paul brought up the poor, and that was in the discussion about getting rid of the minimum wage (he thinks it will lead to more jobs) and how he opposes welfare.

During the CNN/Tea Party debate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney managed to speak the word "poor," but that was only when it came to America being an "energy-poor" country.

Republicans will quickly say that their economic agenda is the best way to get people back to work and a job is the best way to get people out of poverty. But it's also true that the poverty issue extends beyond employment -- to education and health care.

Voters in these traditional red states should be demanding that the GOP candidates banking on their votes say and do more than they are doing. Scarcely mentioning the poor or poverty is insufficient.

Maybe part of the problem is the poor don't have lobbyists. There aren't any Super Pacs being formed to raise millions of dollars to demand accountability on the issue. Even right-wing Christian leaders such as Ralph Reed and his Faith and Freedom Coalition are quick to condemn Obama's plan to tax the rich but say nothing about the poorest states in the country, or even demand a poverty plan from the GOP candidates.

If I were a poor person in a red state, my primary issue would be which candidate, including Obama, speaks to my needs. If a candidate spends more time defending tax cuts for the wealthy and saying nothing about the poor, including the growing number of children on the poverty rolls, that candidate would be hard pressed to get my vote.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland S. Martin.

So the ten most impoverished states are solidly Republican-- what exactly would/should the Republicans do to try to fix this... if anything? Your opinions on the statistics and opinions brought up here?

**Melchiour**

Posting again =)

If I were a poor person in a red state, my primary issue would be which candidate, including Obama, speaks to my needs. If a candidate spends more time defending tax cuts for the wealthy and saying nothing about the poor, including the growing number of children on the poverty rolls, that candidate would be hard pressed to get my vote.

[i]The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland S. Martin.

I think this speaks volumes. WHEN I WAS A POOR PERSON, my thoughts were never about how will politician A B and C help me, it was how do I save myself. I find it terrible that people always look for someone else to solve their issues. Unless these people are disabled, veterans, or something else major they can rise above if they so choose. I have been there, and I took myself out of it without aid or help.

BTW I belong to no political party and dislike all politicians regardless of party.

**Melissia**

Not everyone can "pull themselves up by their own boostraps". I have a friend who would be unable to push himself out of poverty without the help of federal financial aid to try to get himself a degree, for example-- otherwise he'd be stuck working in an Albertsons grocery store (or equivalent) all his life. There's not enough jobs out there, so he's trying to improve his lot in life through college.

Let's say a place has 50 people hired. Even if merely a tenth of them want to raise to management level to earn more money (and are willing to accept the responsibiltiy, there might be only one management position at a place that small. So only one of them gets to advance past the lowest level of jobs. Kudos for the guy/girl who makes it, but the other four are still stuck at a dead-end job.

But even getting a degree isn't a guarantee you'll actually get a job, because there's always a limited number of jobs available. Even in nursing here, despite the national shortage, there's so many nursing students that they've actually had to put a 4.0 requirement on enlisting in the nursing program, and there's not necessarily a guarantee you'll get hired afterwards even then unless you manage to work with a hospital or something during your classwork and get a leg in the door that way.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Melchiour, that's the difference between the mindsets of the two parties.

**Melchiour**

Melissia wrote:Not everyone can "pull themselves up by their own boostraps". I have a friend who would be unable to push himself out of poverty without the help of federal financial aid to try to get himself a degree, for example-- otherwise he'd be stuck working in an Albertsons grocery store (or equivalent) all his life. There's not enough jobs out there.

I was easily able to qualify for student loans from banks when I went back to school. Also there are almost an infinite number of scholarships from non profit organizations available. Many go unclaimed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Melchiour, that's the difference between the mindsets of the two parties.

Agreeing with a mindset does not a party member make.

I am appalled by their tactics, ethics, work level, ability to lie, and general idiocy.

**Melissia**

Melchiour wrote:I was easily able to qualify for student loans

Then you got government assistance, as student loans are given special status by the government and even subsidized to some extent.

Hell, even college tuition itself is often subsidized, so you end up paying FAR less than you would have to normally.

**Melchiour**

Melissia wrote:
Let's say a place has 50 people hired. Even if merely a tenth of them want to raise to management level to earn more money (and are willing to accept the responsibiltiy, there might be only one management position at a place that small. So only one of them gets to advance past the lowest level of jobs. Kudos for the guy/girl who makes it, but the other four are still stuck at a dead-end job.

Non management doesn't mean a dead end job. If your current job has no way to move up and it doesn't pay enough its time to move on. Plenty of places hire "low level" employees who make good money. I am no where near management and I make plenty to support my family.

My lack of compassion probably comes from the fact that I was in poverty and worked my ass off to fix it. The job market isn't great, but people can find work.

**Melissia**

Melchiour wrote:Non management doesn't mean a dead end job. If your current job has no way to move up and it doesn't pay enough its time to move on. Plenty of places hire "low level" employees who make good money. I am no where near management and I make plenty to support my family.

My lack of compassion probably comes from the fact that I was in poverty and worked my ass off to fix it. The job market isn't great, but people can find work.

So? That just means you got lucky and found a job that worked. Not everyone can, try hard or not.

I worked my ass off getting a pharmacy technician license-- and then spent two years trying to find pharmacy technician job across the entirety of fort worth and the surrounding suburbs and other nearby cities (but not Dallas, as I don't have a deathwish). Thousands of applications sent out, no response except for automated email responses-- because there were too many people applying and not enough positions.

Hell even getting a job at friggin' wal-mart or mcdonald's is a matter of luck these days. I try to apply for ANY job during the summer break between semesters, and I'm usually turned down from every single one because I'm "overqualified"...

**Phototoxin**

People 'often' ignore such biased articles.

Assuming it's factually true it is quite sad. I do find it odd that it's liked to politiical climate. I cannot see how the Ameriancs do it - having only 2 major parties.

**Melchiour**

Phototoxin wrote: I cannot see how the Ameriancs do it - having only 2 major parties.

I think that the two party system works to polarize America into two distinct groups which is sad. There are more than two ways to look at an issue, but only 2 are usually discussed.

I do hope that the current state of distaste in America leads to new parties.

**biccat**

The article should be entitled "What I Think Republicans Should Be Talking About." Which, given that he is apparently a huge fan of President Obama, is some issue that would present the President in a less flattering light.

Also, blame Bush, because that's always a big seller.

A lot of the recent political commentary I've seen is that the President is appealing to his liberal base (see e.g. American Jobs Act) rather than moving towards the center. I think this means that he (or at least his political advisors) sees a need to appeal to these voters to get them to the polls. This doesn't bode well for reelection.

**ShumaGorath**

I was easily able to qualify for student loans from banks when I went back to school. Also there are almost an infinite number of scholarships from non profit organizations available. Many go unclaimed.

When did you go to school? One of the things about economic depressions is that they aren't always and sometimes you have it easier then others because you did gak before gak went down.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melchiour wrote:
Phototoxin wrote: I cannot see how the Ameriancs do it - having only 2 major parties.

I think that the two party system works to polarize America into two distinct groups which is sad. There are more than two ways to look at an issue, but only 2 are usually discussed.

I do hope that the current state of distaste in America leads to new parties.

It's not going to with the current American populace. They're too easily led. The biggest group of disenfranchised crazies ever assembled into a political movement (tea partiers) are just republican stooges. We'll never get a third party without serious reform in national voting laws or the removal of yellow journalism from legal press.

**Tigerone**

What does it mean to be "poor" in America? For the average reader, the word Poverty implies significant physical hardship -- for example, the lack of a warm, adequate home, nutritious food, or reasonable clothing for one's children. By that measure, very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as "living in Poverty" by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.

The average person identified as "poor" by the government has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. According to the government's own surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not affluent, it is far from the images of dire Poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.

Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.

**mattyrm**

Its painfully obvious when you think about it, but nobody likes to mention the R word.

Ask yourself this, do most Mormons vote for Mitt Romney given the chance?

The ten poorest states are the ten most Religious states.They are the poorest, the fattest and the least well educated.

They wont vote for the best person for them, indeed, there is solid evidence that the less well educated you are, the more likely you are to be Religious, so they probably have little interest in politics/economics but they like it when "that there Mike Huckerby feller plays his geetar and talks about Jesus!"

Muslims almost always vote for other Muslims. Go to Bradford and the Muslim vote goes to another Muslim, never to the white guy who isn't one.

Its the exact same thing. It is utterly laughable that crushingly poor people would choose republican over democrat, but choose them they do, thanks to the fact that the average Joe knows feth all about politics.

gak, you could even kick the Religion thing out of bed and the point would be the same. But Religion is an incredibly powerful motivator and as a result its nailed on.

Think about it. Many people vote purely on personality. My missus Grandparents did. I asked them why they voted for Obama and they said "He seems nice"

If they like the candidate, and he is pious and likeable and refers to their God alot. Then that is ample reason for them to vote for him.

Mike Huckabee.. Jesus. Like anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size would vote for that guy!

People vote for the same Religion/belief system and we all do it. Even me, If two candidates where more or less identical in view, but one of them seemed to have more in common with me (was agnostic and not a Catholic like the other bloke) then that would swing the vote.

Its painfully obvious that Jesus in involved, but nobody likes to say it.

**ShumaGorath**

Tigerone wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.

Tell that to the 11% of the population classified as "food insecure". Ideology is nice and all but your entire post smacked of tamany hall ignorance about the demographics of the U.S. and what currency is.

**mattyrm**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Tigerone wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.

Tell that to the 11% of the population classified as "food insecure". Ideology is nice and all but your entire post smacked of tamany hall ignorance about the demographics of the U.S. and what currency is.

Yeah my missus is stunned at how much better off people here are than In California, and its not like in the UK we give everyone a castle.

Seriously some of the people in the US are staggeringly poor. I watched a 60 minutes with her about it and it beggared belief that in a country like the US you take so little care of people. Something like 20% of School children were homeless and this show was following all these kids around who have to sleep on relatives floors and peel the rats off before they go to school!

And gak, im a proper bastard! Im all for giving poor people less over here, but the fethers need some help in the states. When you have an entire family living in a garden shed, something is fethed up.

**Kilkrazy**

Tigerone wrote:What does it mean to be "poor" in America? For the average reader, the word Poverty implies significant physical hardship -- for example, the lack of a warm, adequate home, nutritious food, or reasonable clothing for one's children. By that measure, very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as "living in Poverty" by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.

The average person identified as "poor" by the government has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. According to the government's own surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not affluent, it is far from the images of dire Poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.

Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
We have it good in America. Our "poor" are very rich. Giving them "stuff" works for the select few of those who are experiencing a very dark time in their lives. But for the majority of the "poor"--well, what government provides will not fix their problems.

The message I take from the above is that what government provides did fix their problems.

**Melissia**

In another thread, I posted an article that showed that quite a few people were pushed OUT of poverty by the government, so Kilkrazy is essentially correct.

**The Foot**

Personally, I don't think the government should help people who aren't trying to help themselves too. If someone is impoverished, but trying to improve their situation then they should get a helping hand. Key word there is trying since I understand sometimes there isn't much you can do besides hooking or selling drugs. The poor people that just stand there and say, "woe is me, I have no money, boy it sure would be nice if the government would throw money at me" get zero sympathy from me.

**Tigerone**

In the U.S. there are two measures for poverty. The first is the traditional one, a measure of absolute deprivation. The second is measure of relative deprivation. There are several genuinely impoverished people out there, and it's unfortunate that the "relatively impoverished" have the opportunity to gain access to the some of the assistance that should be reserved for really poor people. But there is another viewpoint on what it means to be poor. Some social welfare poverty specialists have pushed the idea of poverty as a matter of society's standard of living. According to this idea, what were luxuries only a couple of decades ago, such as microwave, and cell phones, should now be considered necessities that all people are entitled to.
Many low-income people feel impoverished because they can't help but compare their possessions and lifestyle with those of other Americans, especially as seen through the media. And while that may be understandable, I don't think it justifies any potential automatic entitlement to the luxuries they may crave.
There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty

**Melissia**

Pardon me for going on a tangent buuut... I certainly think a fridge, electricity, running water, and air conditioning are a necessity here in Texas, and at least some kind of oven even if it isn't a microwave...

For the fridge: the main reason is... it's cheaper to buy food in bulk. Thus, the fridge-- buy food in bulk, save it, and eat the bulk food in proper meal-sized portions until you have to buy again. This is a necessity for those of low income, and while it's possible to buy items which don't require refrigeration in bulk, it's VERY unhealthy to live off of them (like living off of ONLY bulk ramen noodles), and lack of health leads to being poor far quicker than being healthy.

On air conditioning: people die here every year from not having proper cooling. It's especially necessary for those with children, or the elderly-- but not exclusively so. Being hot all the time also leaves one exhausted and unhealthy, thus it reduces their chance to rise out of poverty.

On running water: necessary to stay healthy (and alive), and it's more expensive to get bottled water. With refrigeration, also helps with the heat wave problem.

On an oven of some (any) sort: necessary to actually cook the food. Living off of pre-cooked, ready to eat food is generally unhealthy outside of the military. Unless the US government set up MRE stocks in every city and you were forced to eat those if you're on food stamps (and since MREs are often more expensive, they're not necessarily the best choice for food stamps), it's healthier to buy in bulk, refrigerate, and cook when needed.

On electricity: necessary for the rest of these to work (non-electrical grills are often more expensive to use).

If someone's lacking these, I'd say they're in poverty, and quite probably their lives are in real jeopardy-- if not their lives, certainly their health, which only leads to further poverty and thus a further drain on the system.

**Tigerone**

So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?

**Melissia**

We've suffered plenty of record heat waves since then. It's actually a bit hotter than it used to be, especially in cities with all of the concrete and asphalt.

**Tigerone**

I forgot Global Warming.

**ShumaGorath**

Tigerone wrote:So it was not hot in Texas pre 1970?

Air conditioning didn't come standard in every two bit economy apartment in America before 1970. Please use at least a bare amount of logic when assembling your trains of thought.

**Melissia**

Also, quite a few people in said two-bit economy apartments died from heat. It was a very, VERY unhealthy place to live, and often still is.

**ShumaGorath**

Melissia wrote:Also, quite a few people in said two-bit economy apartments died from heat. It was a very, VERY unhealthy place to live, and often still is.

A statistically irrelevant number of people died from heat stroke. That is a bad and illogical argument countering another bad and illogical argument. You two are running in bad circles.

**Tigerone**

Key point.

There is a drastic difference between living with a low income and living in real poverty

**Melissia**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Melissia wrote:Also, quite a few people in said two-bit economy apartments died from heat. It was a very, VERY unhealthy place to live, and often still is.

A statistically irrelevant number of people died from heat stroke.

A statistically irrelevant amount of people die in plane crashes, too, but we still have regulations enforcing safety there.

**frgsinwntr**

http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/moneyinvesting/news/poorest-states-america?cm_ven=outbrain&psv=outbrainselectedarticle&obref=obnetwork

Interesting read