Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
- Thread starter
- #61
I am seeing in many threads efforts to promote certain points of view by redefining the definition of certain words. In this thread the push is to explain that what used to be poverty fifty years ago is not the same definition of poverty today. A previous thread which may still be up spent many pages claiming that intolerance is really not intolerance as Webster defines it but something different. As one poster has it the goal posts are forever being moved by guerrilla posters who continually lose the battle but will never give up the war. In my opinion the biggest reason for these eternal arguments is the lack of recognition of absolutes. If there can be no agreement on what is an incontestable truth than the ball can never be moved forward. Going into many of these thread rooms I just find a bunch of alpha thinkers chasing their tails.
Products - Data Briefs - Number 88 - March 2012
Old fart( of) I must take issue with your take on things even though you seem to be an eminent numbers cruncher. There is an old joke my accountant told me which I want to pass on to you with a slight change. A man asked a teacher what 2 and 2 was and she responded by saying 4 . Then he asked a psychiatrist what 2 and 2 was and he said it depends on what the meaning of 2 was.then the man asked a statistician what 2 and 2 was and the statistician replied, what would you like it to be?
Sometimes I get the impression OF that you determine what poverty is by looking at your computer screen and that there are millions of people warehoused in high rises in NY or wherever that conservatives refuse to admit even exist. I feel it doesn't matter to you what my eyes see or what my experience is if govt stats say something else. Having lived for forty years with fishery scientists I have a healthy skepticism and very little faith in the numbers that the govt puts out.
And I find your dismissal of details in a Heritage article at least in part based on your political bias. If you can't concede that many if not most of the poor live in conditions that don't even approach poverty than you are being unrealistic. Poverty is not having a roof over your head. Poverty is not having running water. Poverty is not having a refrigerator. Poverty is not having a school to go to. Poverty is exhibiting severe malnutrition. Poverty is having no shoes to wear. Poverty is having no access to medical treatment. And as one who has traveled extensively in this country this kind of poverty is few and far between.
So let's talk about absolutes that your numbers can't argue with. Life expectancy has continued to rise every year since 1935 and has risen even more dramatically in the last fifteen. So things have gotten dramatically better in this country period! You can't argue with this so your negative views of the underclass are more about the degree of improvement than whether the lot of the poor has become remarkably better. Are you going to argue that people are trying to get into this country so they can die earlier? Or will you be ready for an honest debate about whether some govt entitlement programs have actually contributed to poorer health and a decrease in life expectancy for some at the bottom.and I don't think it is fair to talk about death rates when you are comparing countries with homogenous pop to the massive mongrel diversity of the US. We are also victims of our own excesses because of our many successes. And still our life expectancy increases.
So the question remains, are you going to believe what the govt tells you or yor own lying eyes? I will base my judgement on my life experiences
America 10. Poverty 0
I take exception to the statement bolded above. Let me go back and restate what I thought I said in the OP.
There is another thread that was dealing with this issue. It claimed the war on poverty was a failure. It is in a forum where people can flame each other (as I do) and I thought it was worth asking a question over here.
It has more to do with clearing the smoke you describe and trying to get at something people can agree upon (not the "truth" since that seems to be as elusive as anything).
I quoted the Heritage article only in an attempt to show how some think that the term poverty has lost most of it's meaning. I do not ascribe to it. If I came across that way, I am sorry.
I asked the question at the end. Does the definition change and does that affect things. I am not pushing to change anything. Just to understand what, if anything, should be done to better understand what we call poverty so we can further discuss it.
One think I should have posted is to say that the definition itself should be examined to make sure people agree that represents true poverty. Until this is agreed upon, you really can't define the success or failure of a program in a way people will agree to. Those will be the moving goal posts you referenced in your post.
I hope this helps. This is the CDZ. When I want to flame I go to other forums. This really was looking for some good dialogue on this very significant topic.
Last edited by a moderator: