Mare's Mess

I'm sorry...but that post is a ridiculous.

First of all, it does not appear that he knows his facts. He says:

America has precious little poverty... It barely exists in the United States.

Nearly 35 million people are considered poor in America, meaning that the live below the poverty line. Is that "barely existing"?

15.2 million people in America live in "extreme poverty", meaning their income is less than half that of the poverty line. Is that "barely existing"?

17.6% (12.9 million) of children live inpoverty. Is that "barely existing"?

A family of poor making a little over 18,000 a year is considered poverty. How far do you think that $18,000/year for four people would go?

But of course...Fred goes on with more:

If I had to live in really cheap welfarish quarters in Washington, DC, which I know well, on food stamps and a bit of cash welfare, what would I do?

I’d have a hell of a good time.

Really? One hell of a good time? I would like to see that. He has no idea what it means to be poor if he really thinks this. Then he says this:

I’d spend time reading, which I enjoy and the poor don’t. They aren’t interested.

Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous! Sure...the poor aren't interested in reading. Any data to support this? Or is is just a hateful opinion. That is sad that he actually believes that. The burden of proof is on him for this one, saying that poor people are interested in reading. Come on.

And then you get this:

AIDS is voluntary

Ah...it all makes sense now. Those people with AIDS chose to get AIDS. I see. Tell that to the millions over in Africa.

I am sorry...I often agree with you, but Fred's post is just a bunch of hateful opinion. Sure...there are people who take advantage of welfare - there will be in any system. But the vast majority of those in poverty are there for a reason other than laziness - it may be medical bills. Maybe they were layed off and cannot find a job. Maybe they had parents who failed them, and not they are uneducated and have little choice. Maybe they were in terrible schools and now is stuggling to find a job that pays more than minimum wage (or one that will let them work full time - i.e. Wal-Mart).

The vast majority of people living in poverty are not sitting on their ass watching tv all day. The vast majority of people living in poverty are not there by choice. Most are there for reasons beyond their control, and they long to get out of poverty. Unfortunately poverty is neither "one hell of a good time" nor easy to get out of.

i hate trying to defend someone else's words, but since i posted the link and stated that i agreed with it i feel obligated to. when he said there is precious little poverty in the u.s. he went on to say "if by poverty you mean lack of something to eat, clothing adequate to keep you warm and cover your private parts, and a dry and comfortable place to sleep." i think it's hard to disagree with when you add the second part. our standard of living is so high in this country that even our poor would be considered very wealthy in many parts of the world. i believe that this is what fred is arguing - precious few lack for the necessities of life here.

matt and i were recently reading something a friend from church had written about his childhood (50 years ago). they had no indoor plumbing or electricity and only one wood-burning stove in the kitchen to use for heat so in the winter they all slept on the kitchen floor by the stove. today this family would be considered in dire poverty, but back then they didn't see themselves as poor. poverty is a very relative term.

i don't want to come across as judgmental, but i'm guessing you haven't spent much time in poor neighborhoods. fred has and this column is written from those experiences. i have a bit of experience in this area myself and i can tell you that WAY too many poor people DO spend all day sitting on their asses and i would say MOST of them are there because of irresponsible choices and/or laziness. julia told me about one of my former students who just had her 5th kid - single, no education, no job and cranking out babies like a factory. tell me this isn't voluntarily putting yourself into poverty!

as far as aids, i'm probably not knowledgable enough to comment on this, but here goes anyway. in the u.s. aids is almost 100% avoidable. if you don't engage in any of the high-risk behaviors associated with aids then the chances are great that you will never contract it. i can't speak to aids in africa because i don't know about how the situation may be different there.

funny how people are "hateful" when you diagree with them, but dead on when you agree. i probably do the same thing myself.

thanks for the comments! even when i disagree - i love the dialogue!

oops, meant to say this too. you wanted fred to back up his statement that the poor aren't interested in reading. this is based on his experiences with the poor. i think it's only fair that if you want him to back up his statements then people who disagree with him should back up their statements. how about:

"The vast majority of people living in poverty are not there by choice. Most are there for reasons beyond their control."

precious fre lack for the necessities of life here

But this just is not true. Millions are homeless, millions go without food at some point during a year. Sure...poverty is relative. But it has to be. A person making $10,000/year here cannot afford healthcare, healthy meals, decent housing, etc. A person making $10,000/year in Sierra Leone would be able to live much more comfortably.

I completely agree that we have a very high of standard of living, but because of this we also have millions of people in poverty.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in poor neighborhoods

I have a bit of experience in poor neighborhoods. I have never lived one, but I have observed and read a lot. And I do think that there are people in poverty that are there because of laziness. But I also an convinced that most of them are not. Do you really think that most of these people want to be in poverty? That it is fun? Do you really think that most of these people choose to live in public housing projects, or to live on the street? Or to have to skip meals because they cannot afford to buy food? You say I need to support that assertion, and that is fair. I will look for some research.

funny how people are "hateful" when you disagree with them, but dean on when you agree

This is not true. I believe that Fred's column was hateful and based solely on opinion and personal experience. That is no way to base an argument on an entire group of people. And his personal experience was opinion: "I’ve been in a lot of homes in allegedly poor parts of cities". Even this use of words: "allegedly", shows an inherant bias in his writing. Just because someone has a roof over the head does not mean that they are not poor.

I am still baffled at his assertion that he would have "one hell of a good time" if he was living in poverty. Do you really think that he truly believes that? Does he truly believe that living in poverty is something fun?

"Do you really think that most of these people want to be in poverty? That it is fun? Do you really think that most of these people choose to live in public housing projects, or to live on the street? Or to have to skip meals because they cannot afford to buy food?"

see my earlier post "remembering julia." of course people don't want to be in poverty, but they've been taught to believe they're just not capable of anything more. children who have been abused grow up to believe that they're not worthy or capable of a healthy relationship. same thing with kids on the dole. they grow up believing that there must be something wrong with them and they aren't capable of anything more. and when there are few consequences for irresponsible behavior - have more babies = get more money - what would cause someone to choose to act responsibly?

and no, fred would not say "poverty is fun." what he's saying is there are plenty of opportunities for fun that cost nothing so if he were poor he would still be able to find lots of fun things to do. the big picture i think he's trying to get across is not that you can find shangi-la even in poverty. i think the big picture is that there are many opportunities for the poor in this country and many choose not to take advantage of them but still choose unwise and destructive activities and he's sick of being forced to support people like that. don't know how you can argue with that.

"I believe that Fred's column was hateful and based solely on opinion and personal experience. That is no way to base an argument on an entire group of people. And his personal experience was opinion"

isn't that what most people blog about? i know i don't go out doing lots of research before i blog about something. i base it on my experiences and my limited knowledge - as you do too, i'm sure. he's not a journalist and this wasn't his thesis, for goodness sake. he's a guy with an opinion just like you and me.

And like a lot of bloggers he's really trying to ruffle feathers and generate attention and feedback. One says he's hateful, one says he's thoughtprovoking. I call it flamebait.

what he's saying is there are plenty of opportunities for fun that cost nothing so if he were poor he would still be able to find lots of fun things to do.

But most poor people aren't sitting around doing nothing. Most poor people work, they just don't make enough money to get by. Fred acts lie poor people sit around and do nothing. And sure, there are some who do that. But I think that it is a huge stretch to assert that all, or even most, poor people are lazy and sitting around doing nothing.

isn't that what most people blog about? i know i don't go out doing lots of research before i blog about something. i base it on my experiences and my limited knowledge - as you do too, i'm sure

I do everything that I can to support my assertions in my blogging. If you assert something as a fact you should give support for it. If you continue to read my blog, you'll see that I do a decent ammount of research on the things that I write.

And maybe the term "hateful" was too strong, but I do believe that Fred presents a biased article that is very "anti-poor". He clearly holds the poor in a negative light, yet believes that he would enjoy being poor. His article sure wasn't full of love.

you say most poor people don't sit on their asses all day and fred and i say way too many do (don't know if fred or i would say most - but it's way, way, way too many and these are the people he was directing his anger at, not the ones who are busting their humps trying to make ends meet). nobody can possibly back these assertions up with facts, we're basing our assessment on our personal experiences in poor neighborhoods or on the books we've read or the people we've talked to. no, fred's post wasn't filled with love. probably because it makes him really angry, as it does me. i bet many of your posts about republicans aren't filled with much love either because you believe they are causing harm. what angers me is that i believe the do-gooders are causing so much damage to the people they claim to want to help and then calling anyone who opposes them "hateful." i believe the welfare system has caused irreparable damage to lots of kids whom i love. this probably isn't where fred is coming from, but i can also relate to the anger of being forced to participate in the charade. and i think it's clear that fred was expressing his opinions and not facts. facts are tricky things anyway because for every factoid you can come up with supporting your pov i can come up with a few that support mine.

"And like a lot of bloggers he's really trying to ruffle feathers and generate attention and feedback."

fred definitely does write in character so he says things in an outrageous way. maybe to get a reaction or maybe because that's how he enjoys writing, but that's one of the reasons i enjoy reading his stuff (some of it). i think it's much more engaging to read someone who writes colorfully than blogs with just a bunch of dry facts. if i want facts i'll read the newspaper!

i think it's clear that fred was expressing his opinions and not facts. facts are tricky things anyway because for every factoid you can come up with supporting your pov i can come up with a few that support mine.

They are not nearly as tricky as you make them out to be. Fred did attempt to portray certain assertions as fact. For example, he asserted "America has precious little poverty... It barely exists in the United States." But I demonstrated with facts that Fred was wrong. Sure...there are some facts that can be distorted, but facts, data, and figures are much more reliable than opinion and personal experience.

the books we've read

Have you really read books that say that most (or many) of those that live in poverty sit just sit on their ass all day?

then calling anyone who opposes them "hateful.

This is a completely unfair characterization. I think that Fred's tone was quite hateful and negative of the poor. I very rarely label something as hateful, but I believe that Fred's tone came pretty close.

i believe the welfare system has caused irreparable damage to lots of kids whom i love.

Why is that we (the U.S.) have the smallest social spending of all developed countries, and the largest income inequality? Other nations who place a larger emphasis and priority on alleviating poverty are able to reduce poverty and income inequality. A welfare system is not to blame for poverty, though our system is unperfect. Other nations continue to show that an effective welfare system can reduce poverty and inequality.

first of all, fred CLEARLY started his piece by saying that this was based on his experiences. he never said he'd done research on the subject, never stated any statistics, he didn't have a by-line. and from the style of the writing i think most people would come to the logical conclusion that this was nothing more than a personal rant.

when i mentioned books i was actually referring to you because you said you had read books on the subject when you were talking about your exposure to poverty. i was referring to all 3 of us when i gave those examples.

oh, and fred clearly gave HIS definition of poverty. this is probably not the same as the government definition.

last thing i'll say about fred's piece (because i think we've beat this horse dead) - it was a rant! haven't read your blog enough to know, but haven't you ever just cut loose and ranted about something and probably said outrageous things just to get a point across? i do it a lot and it's one of the things i enjoy about reading fred. i'll bet that if you read something written in that tone and attitude that you agreed with, you'd be praising it. you've never read anything mean-spirited about the evil, hypocritical republicans and didn't get some satisfaction from that? Come on!

and fred clearly gave HIS definition of poverty

But he was even wrong using his definition. He created his own definition of poverty and then said poverty barely existed. Yet the FACTS show that millions are homeless, which would fit under Fred's definition.

haven't you ever just cut loose...and probably said outrageious things just to get a point across?

I try not too...sure, I write things with opinion. But I attempt to avoid outrageous statements that cannot be supported and do little but make the writer lose credibility.

wow...I feed the homeless once a month and the people are so great to talk to... yes some are jerks...but arent there many out there (even the rich, and "perfect" people), that are very big jerks? so think about other people in the world and think about this for me please..... how would you react if you were homeless!~?