I’m placing my bet early, but my money on having to hear this again in 2008. The thing that I’ve never understood is that for as long as I can remember, I’ve heard this come election time. Yet, every single election, I’ve had the same answer, YES, I am better off. Leaving me to wonder WTF, is that supposed to mean? I mean, doesn’t the question only pander to those who have already made up their minds? In which case, it’s like asking someone drinking a glass of water, if they want a glass of water. I keep waiting for a small sign of intelligence from the DNC or the RNC, but well, guess I’ve already placed my marker.

Yes, but I'm civil service so I'm always in the middle. I don't do great in a boom, but I don't do badly in a bust.

But I heard an interesting thing today. When LBJ's war on poverty started forty years ago, the people who were considered middle class at the time, lived in a similar manner to those who are considered poverty today.

The definition of poverty has to be adjusted.

But I heard an interesting thing today. When LBJ's war on poverty started forty years ago, the people who were considered middle class at the time, lived in a similar manner to those who are considered poverty today.

The definition of poverty has to be adjusted.This is a great point!

Once you realize that poor people today live better than, say, street urchins of the 19th Century, it's easy to understand that poverty in modern times is an issue of no real importance.

This is a great point!
Once you realize that poor people today live better than, say, street urchins of the 19th Century, it's easy to understand that poverty in modern times is an issue of no real importance.Facetiousness aside:
* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (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; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
* The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.
* Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
* Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

It's time to re-define.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... so poverty and hunger in America have been defeated completely once and for all.... according to the rightwing propaganda anyway.

Sorry Charlie. I volunteer with my Church at the local Food Bank, the local homeless shelter and the local runaway home and I can tell you from first hand experience that there are indeed still poor, homeless and starving people in America. The poor do NOT own their own homes. That is a lie. Most poor people RENT. Hell, most Americans Rent.

Most poor people do not have cars, or if they do they share one car among the entire family.

The one fallicy is the idea that poor people do not work. Most poor people already have a job, but it is either only part time or it doesn't pay enough to live on.

Anyone who believes that nonsense that there is no poverty in America needs to get out in the REAL world and go try to live in minimum wage for a month or two.

1. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... so poverty and hunger in America have been defeated completely once and for all....
2. according to the rightwing propaganda anyway.
3. ...and I can tell you from first hand experience that there are indeed still poor, homeless and starving people in America.
4. The poor do NOT own their own homes.... Most poor people do not have cars,
5. Anyone who believes that nonsense that there is no poverty in America.....1. Who said that?
2. Where?
3. Who said otherwise.
4. Some do.
5. Who believes that?

Brooks, could you please give a citation for your statistics on the poor. I have saved them and plan on using them at another site where citations are pretty much demanded.

Depends on how many years ago you are talking about. Am I better off than I was thirty years ago? Probably.

Am I better off than I was four years ago?

The difference is, four years ago I was working and now I am retired. Money wise I am about the same as I was then. Health wise probably a little worse off. All in all, better off. I have the same amount of spending money I had when I was working, all the kids are married, I have two more grandchildren, I have a winter place in Florida, I have an extra car I use for fun. Yeah, I guess when you take everything into consideration I am better off.

I agree that it's a dumb question, and it's certainly not something to base your vote on. If you're no better off than you were four years ago, the first thing you need to ask is what YOU did wrong. Once you've done that, then you can see if the blame can be laid elsewhere.

A better question, although still vague, would be "Is the country better off than it was x years ago?"

Question needs to be refrased... to read:

If you are a Republican follower, Are you better off than you were x number of years ago?

...refrased...

??? No results found for refrased (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refrased)

How about attempting to communicate in a manner that others might comprehend?

??? No results found for refrased (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refrased)

How about attempting to communicate in a manner that others might comprehend?

Zorry, still not learned fuckin' henglish enouf.

A better question, although still vague, would be "Is the country better off than it was x years ago?"

Agreed. If one looks at the overall trend, the gap between rich and poor in America has increased and our national debt has increased astonishingly. Are we, as a nation, better off then we were x years ago? Some people might be but the overall trend is no.

Facetiousness aside:
* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (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; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
* The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.
* Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
* Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

It's time to re-define.

Sources???

I'm living in a carribean paradise drinking cuba libres. I'd say things are pretty good. ;)

Overall, I'd say things are better, but little of that has to do with government policy. And yes, Brooks, where are your sources for this?

Sources???The American Housing Survey for 2001, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy among other sources.

The information is compiled in this article. Scroll down to see charts and graphs:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm#pgfId-1070496

The American Housing Survey for 2001, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy among other sources.

The information is compiled in this article. Scroll down to see charts and graphs:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm#pgfId-1070496
Those organizations are mouthpieces for Limbaugh and his pack of swine. Bah. I shan't read.

The information is compiled in this article. Scroll down to see charts and graphs:


Thank you. The REAL answer to my question was The Heritage Foundation.

That was like pulling teeth.

1. The REAL answer to my question was The Heritage Foundation.
2. That was like pulling teeth.1. No, the real answer is, as I said, The American Housing Survey for 2001, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The Heritage Foundation's role is simply that they are possibly the only media outlet reporting these little known statistics.

2. You asked. I answered in my next post.
"Pulling teeth"? I admire your patience.

1. No, the real answer is, as I said...

The Hertiage Foundation.

That is the article you quoted.
Don't pretend you did any actual research or verified any of the sources.

All you actually did was copy and paste an article from the Heritage Foundation.

1. Don't pretend you did any actual research or verified any of the sources.
2. All you actually did was copy and paste an article from the Heritage Foundation.1. You are perfectly welcome to look back and point out where I did that. Otherwise it just stands as a really funny thing to say.

2. Yeah.... and......

2. Yeah.... and......

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I didn't see the point of being so needlessly argumentative.

*sigh*

In the years I've posted here no one has ever discovered my cutting-and-pasting secret. Now I'm humiliated.
Till now everyone thought I just knew it all.
You've ruined everything.

I believe the world standing of the country is worse.

I believe that individuals that had determination and a plan are probably better off.

In the years I've posted here no one has ever discovered my cutting-and-pasting secret. Now I'm humiliated.
Till now everyone thought I just knew it all.
You've ruined everything.

I think your problem is that you believe your cutting and pasting skills are worth far more than they really are.

I think your problem is that you believe your cutting and pasting skills are worth far more than they really are.Ummm, okay.

Being poor isn't that bad... At least when I was poor (read: living with my mother), I was skinny... Perhaps mostly for reasons that had nothing to do with being poor, but even if I hadn't been on too many drugs to eat, there would have been no food anyway!

As long as I have the internet, soda, and multivitamins, I'm good.

In the years I've posted here no one has ever discovered my cutting-and-pasting secret. Now I'm humiliated.
Till now everyone thought I just knew it all.
You've ruined everything.

Brooks, you never cease to amaze.

Being poor isn't that bad...
Yeah, but being rich beats the **** outta being poor.

I wouldn't know, but I assume that's true.

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (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; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
* The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.
* Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
* Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.Why those mischievous rapscallions! Who would have thought they lived such lives of luxury?

Seriously, Brooks, a lot of these figures are pretty meaningless. Sure, folks have more TV's these days -- they're a lot cheaper than they used to be. Gone are the days when a TV or an air conditioner was a major household purchase requiring months of savings or a layaway plan to acquire. I bought an old air conditioner at a garage sale ten years ago for $20 and bought a DVD player last month for $30. And God forbid that a poor person might have a car. Why, that car might be used to drive to work! And two cars might mean two people are working! The claim about living space is laughable. How statistically valid is it to compare American poor folks (many of whom are rural or suburban) with residents of European cities? I'm sure our rural poor on average have more living space than many well-to-do New Yorkers. So what? It doesn't change the fact that some poor people live in terribly overcrowded conditions. And again, the fact that most poor children are properly nourished does not change the fact that some of them are not.

I followed your link and found the following statement:

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. 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 opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

This struck me as odd for two reasons. The first is that statistically it is very unlikely to be true. When you say, for example, that 75% of poor people own a car and that 73% have microwaves this does not mean that 74% of poor people have both a car and a microwave. Rather, the odds of this being true are found by multiplying the probabilities, yielding a result of 55%. Imagine, if you will, a slot machine with 15 wheels, one for each of Mr. Rector's measurements. All the wheels have more cherries than blanks, but the odds of all 15 wheels stopping on a cherry are close to zero. Mr. Rector's description of the 'typical' poor American turns out to be anything but.

Which brings me to the second reason I found it odd. Recently, in another thread, you stated the following: "Taking individually cherry picked issues is an irrelevant way to judge a nation. It's a cheap tactic. Well, that is exactly what Mr. Rector is doing here. In fact, it seems he's made a career out of minimizing the deleterious effects of poverty on our society.It's time to re-define.That's fine by me. Let's start by saying anyone who has to choose between paying their rent or getting health insurance is poor. Let's also say that anyone who has to send their children to a substandard school is poor. That would be a beginning.

Seriously, Brooks, a lot of these figures are pretty meaningless. Sure, folks have more TV's these days -- they're a lot cheaper than they used to be. Gone are the days when a TV or an air conditioner was a major household purchase requiring months of savings or a layaway plan to acquire. I bought an old air conditioner at a garage sale ten years ago for $20 and bought a DVD player last month for $30. And God forbid that a poor person might have a car. Why, that car might be used to drive to work! And two cars might mean two people are working!

You have a point to a certain extent. Yet if one is truly poor, then you wouldn't (or should I say, shouldn't) be spending $30 on a DVD player (or DVDs or DVD rentals), shouldn't be spending money on cable, cell phones, etc. There are, in many cases, issues of poor money management.

The claim about living space is laughable. How statistically valid is it to compare American poor folks (many of whom are rural or suburban) with residents of European cities? I'm sure our rural poor on average have more living space than many well-to-do New Yorkers. So what? It doesn't change the fact that some poor people live in terribly overcrowded conditions. And again, the fact that most poor children are properly nourished does not change the fact that some of them are not.

I'd agree that it's generally irrelevant, except perhaps to bring into the debate how much room people actually need to live. I personally don't know the answer to that one.

Let's start by saying anyone who has to choose between paying their rent or getting health insurance is poor. Let's also say that anyone who has to send their children to a substandard school is poor. That would be a beginning.

I agree with the first one. The second one has little to do with income and a lot more to do with the level of importance many of America's poor put on education. No amount of money can overcome parents that don't care. I think the standard assumption is that if a majority of the students in a school are under-performing, it must be the school's fault. I think that's rarely the case.

Hmmm... At my mom's house they have a computer, but no TV, or cable. They did recently get a home phone, and they bought a microwave from Goodwill for $10... The house has 2 bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a hallway. Small but not overly cramped. Oh and she also has a $1000 car which is about to break down.

Anyways, the most telling thing is, if you asked my mom, I don't think she would describe herself as poor.

Anyways, the most telling thing is, if you asked my mom, I don't think she would describe herself as poor.

I think poor is an attitude. People with a victim mentality are poor. People like your mom will be just fine.

No amount of money can overcome parents that don't care.While I agree with this as a general statement the reasoning behind it can obviously be taken too far. You shouldn't, for example, expect very good results if you don't spend money to attract quality teachers, have decent textbooks, school buildings and so forth. And I think it's safe to say that the very best teachers achieve breakthroughs in the face of parental indifference on occasion. Of course, such teachers are rare and their failures no doubt outnumber their successes. But still, it happens. For me, that's all the more reason to try and attract the very best teachers we can to schools that are substandard. I think the standard assumption is that if a majority of the students in a school are under-performing, it must be the school's fault. I think that's rarely the case.I wouldn't make that assumption. Similarly, I wouldn't always put it entirely on the parents either (although the primary responsibility is theirs). There's the neighborhood, the drugs, the violence; there's a whole culture surrounding at-risk students that needs to change. This culture persists through generations -- and while I think you can make some progress at the adult level through job training and adult education, the best opportunity to break the cycle is with the kids.

I think poor is an attitude. People with a victim mentality are poor. People like your mom will be just fine.

Exactly. As long as you're warm, properly fed, clean, and properly clothed, you're fine. I'd also include "with internet access" to that one, but that's beside the point. :lolhit: Anyways, just because your neighbor has something you don't (cable TV perhaps? dishwasher?), that doesn't make you poor.

While I agree with this as a general statement the reasoning behind it can obviously be taken too far. You shouldn't, for example, expect very good results if you don't spend money to attract quality teachers, have decent textbooks, school buildings and so forth. And I think it's safe to say that the very best teachers achieve breakthroughs in the face of parental indifference on occasion. Of course, such teachers are rare and their failures no doubt outnumber their successes. But still, it happens. For me, that's all the more reason to try and attract the very best teachers we can to schools that are substandard.

Call me jaded, and I am, but I just don't think more money is going to help at all. Taking my former domicile of the Cincinnati metro area as an example, the city of Cincinnati spent a good $1000 more per student than any other local school system and passed a billion dollar levy to build new schools and still comes out last in the state school scoring system. If they can't attract the best teachers spending that kind of cash then obviously teachers would prefer to make less somewhere else. It seems to me that some more fundamental sort of change needs to take place. Sadly, I have no idea what that might be. Regardless, I don't care to throw any more of my tax money at the problem.

I wouldn't make that assumption. Similarly, I wouldn't always put it entirely on the parents either (although the primary responsibility is theirs). There's the neighborhood, the drugs, the violence; there's a whole culture surrounding at-risk students that needs to change. This culture persists through generations -- and while I think you can make some progress at the adult level through job training and adult education, the best opportunity to break the cycle is with the kids.

I agree that the environment does have an effect. My gut says that if you have parents pushing you to succeed, no amount of idiots hanging around outside of the school is going to get in your way. On the other hand, I know that my sister-in-law decided to attend college largely because all of her friends were.

Dharmabum,

Are you suggesting that the statistics Brooks posted are untrue because while compiled by other organizations they were reported by the Heritage Foundation? Does the touch of the Heritage Foundation instantly change the figures?