--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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. 




Sorry, I don't believe it for a moment.

If you and I went down to the homes of the people in the study, what 
do you think we'd find?

I think we'd find people wasting their money on fast food or 
cigarettes or beer.

The reality is that you can earn minimum wage in this country and 
have enough for basic nutritional intake.

Don't believe everything you read...and start to think for yourself, 
feste37.

Oh, and two more words for you: food stamps.




> 
> 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" <shempmcgurk@> 
> 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/
 


Reply via email to