I liked the idea presented but I feel that there is a slight problem. Likes have to be compared to likes. In other words oranges with oranges. If you compare the middle class of 1971 with that of today I think its wealth may have increased by a certain percentage which can be tranlated into a segment of the national; wealth/income. Now the poor may have got more income today than say the middle class of the 1971 with a tearly income of around 7,500 to 10,000 US $. But in terme of the purchasing power parity of today's $ vis-a-vis the US $ of 1971 there is and will be a huge difference.

Inequality in society is measured by US sociologists using the kind of analysis I have indicated.

But in terme of the purchasing power parity of today's $ vis-a-vis the US $ of 1971 there is and will be a huge difference.

Actually, many conveniences have gotten CHEAPER Bahu. Let me give you an example: In 1997, you could purchase a good, stable (for Windows, at least) computer for $1,000. Today's equivalent goes for under $500 ($297 for a low end Dell plus another $200 for a decent monitor). While the cost of essentials may have risen slightly (many of those items not even close to the rate of inflation), the truth is that the costs of nonessentials has decreased enough that the quality of life of those able to afford more than just the barest essentials has GREATLY increased. You can buy a TV new for under $100, a DVD player for $20-40 (plus the $20 cost of an RF modulator for a low end TV), a low wattage stereo for under $50...the list goes on. Granted, these aren't state of the art appliances, but are you really arguing that the poor deserve 52" HDTV's, stereo surround sound and DVD revorders?

Even as for the cost of essentials such as groceries I can make a compelling argument that the costs haven't increased substantially. I can feed a family of 7 on less than $300 a month and eat well, simply by being frugal. The main culprit in increased cost of living is property values in our larger cities; not only are there ways around that, there are plenty of places one can move where the COL is substantially LOWER. Add to that the fact that, while you will pay substantially more to live in a big city such as Chicago, you can exist without owning a car in big cities such as these. Your added housing costs can be offset by decreased transportation costs.

I can feed a family of 7 on less than $300 a month and eat well, simply by being frugal

$300/month/7people<$1.43/person/day.

The best you can do with that huge sum of money is to buy 6 buns or one small loaf of bread (the large one costs $1.99). I guess that is what you call eating well. No wonder that we are the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the Earth. We can make facts out of illusions. No one else ever done that. The dream of every superpower that ever existed. we just say it and snap our fingers and here it is ..... real things out of nothing.

Thinkaloud: Check your math again. You don't have to buy a loaf of bread for each person per day, do you? Like you say, a loaf of bread is $1.99. Dozen eggs are a dollar or so. Canned vegetables 2 for a dollar. Yadda yadda.

Gideon is talking about on average. Go check the prices on rice, beens, chicken, etc. You sound like someone who hasn't bought many groceries, or never had to pinch pennies and clip coupons.

The best you can do with that huge sum of money is to buy 6 buns or one small loaf of bread (the large one costs $1.99). I guess that is what you call eating well. No wonder that we are the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the Earth. We can make facts out of illusions. No one else ever done that. The dream of every superpower that ever existed. we just say it and snap our fingers and here it is ..... real things out of nothing.

Chicken: 39 cents a pound. Ten pounds of leg quarters, $3.90. We get about three meals out of that.

Tuna: 50 cents a can.

Macaroni and cheese: 33 cents a box.

Bread: 85 cents a loaf for WHOLE GRAIN bread. Oh, that's right, apparently whole grain bread's only nutritious if you DON'T get it at the thrift store! Once it goes on sale, it loses its nutritional value. Gotcha.

Baking mix (generic Bisquik) $1.99 a box. About three days' worth of pancakes out of that.

Vegetable oil: $5.00 a gallon.

Vegetables: 40 cents a can. Frozen vegetables about a buck a pound.

Have you heard of flour, sugar, baking soda, baking powder? Are you aware a good cookbook can be had for under $20 and that homemade foods cost SIGNIFICANTLY less to make than processed foods?

My family eats quite well, ThinkAloud. I've done the math, and what I buy for $300, most people would probably buy for $500-600. I buy in bulk, I buy generic unless a brand name is cheaper, I shop the sales, and guess what? My family also gets fresh fruits and vegetables (there's this really, innovative new idea called "gardening" you might want to check out. It's quite the fad.

The truth is, ThinkAloud, many Americans don't HAVE the money you insist it is necessary to feed their families. We can, and do, make do quite well by knowing how to BUDGET (another innovative idea).

I just gave you very REAL prices. These are sample prices of some of the items I regularly purchase. All are nutritious, and none of these are "6 rolls or a loaf of bread". For pete's sake, think aloud...you're paying 2 1/2 times what I am for bread, and I bet it isn't even WHOLE GRAIN!

Here's a sample of how we shop. Part of last week's grocery trip:

15 boxes macaroni and cheese at 5 for $1.00 (total: $3.00)

24 cans tomato sauce at 5 for $1.00 (total: $4.80)

36 cans vegetables (12 corn, 12 green beans, 12 mixed veggies) at 3 for $0.89 (total: $10.68)

2 boxes of oatmeal at $1.00 apiece (total: $2.00)

5 pounds polish sausage at $1.00 a pound (total: $5.00)

3 packages hot dogs at 69 cents each (total: $2.07)

24 rolls toilet paper at 2 12 roll packages for $4.00 (total: $4.00)

1 head of lettuce at $1.49

4 packages of salad at 50 cents each (total: $2.00)

2 green peppers at 79 cents each (total: $1.58)

A pound of carrots for $1

2 3 pound boxes of pasta for 99 cents each (total: $1.98)

20 navel oranges for $2.00

a pound of bananas for 50 cents.

Total: $42.10 (plus tax)

Does that sound like junk to you? Those aren't stats pulled out of my ass; I have receipts if you'd like them. Now, granted, there are some things we ate that came out of the pantry,  but there are some items on this list where we have substantially more than a week's supply. It all balances out.

Or maybe I should just use your same smartassed ill informed approach: we really died of starvation years ago. Too damned bad nobody bothered to tell us.

Mmmm that was a delicious smackdown post Gideon, you get the cookie for that. He probably hates you now that you have used actual facts to discredit him.

Does that sound like junk to you?

Hey Gideon and Company, let me tell you something about me: I am soooo lousy in exchanging insults and you certainly will beat the hell out of me in a fist fight. i am just a guy who knows very well and first hand what hardship and starvation mean. true, i did very well for my family and myself, thank God. but i still remeber many things. many many things. I am not going to brag here about the extent of my "ill informed" itellectual background or the extent of my knwoledge. that is something beyond the scope and capacity of this discussion. and by the way, i love gardening and i do garden. i just know how the real world works, not just here in our great USA but in many other parts of the world. and i also know how 7 people eat or try to eat. so ... in short forget the insults ( please insult me as you wish while writing just dont waste your time writing it, it doesnt bother me, it just wastes time) and lets stick to thepoint.

I like your list, but you forgot to tell me how many people can that list feed and for how many days. It sounds that you live in a real great area where you can buy 20 Navel oranges for $2, my goodness. i never seen them less than 4 for $1. never. but dont you realise that 99% of us cant find places like yours to live in?

let us really be serious. poverty and needy people are not something funny or light hearted topic for us here to joke about. All of us here on this topic must realize that we are talking about US not THEM. If we are willing to compare our less fortunate citizens with those in other countries like Somalia, Bengaladash, columbia, ...etc, then that says a lot about the rest of us. The USA is not somalia or bengaladash or columbia. it is the USA. so the scale and difinition is different. Isn't it a shame that we stand below many 3rd-world countries in taking care of our young and isn't it a shame for us to say that our governement IS NOT responsible for making sure they are taken care of?

many people here say let the churches and charity groups take care of that? ooooooh boy. don't you guys know the feeling that this cause to the people who go there? i guess not. I or anyone of my family never gone there but i saw them and talked with them and saw the tears. it kills them to go there. they feel degraded and crushed.

If that is what you guys want that for our unfortunate people, then be it. But many people like me dont. We prefer that we the tax payers wisely spend our money and help these people. it is the moral responsibility of the fortunate like us to make sure that they eat enough, not necessarily well AND with dignity and with their heads held high and with no tears in a teenagers' eyes because his/her mother is getting their food from the church or the soup kitchen.

We can do better and we MUST. and it really doesnt need much adjustment in our national budget. always remember we are here in the USA not in somalia. ok?

We can do better and we MUST. and it really doesnt need much adjustment in our national budget. always remeber we are here in the USA not in somalia. ok?

You have missed the enitre point of the article. The point is that many people who are already receiving aid from the national budget waste it (by not shopping intelligently), sqaunder it (spending it on non-essentials), or refuse to leave the goverments teat. Most of them thankfull are not in this category as Kupe's quoted study indicates. Problem is that even if 10% of every group entering welfare stay on welfare it ends up rolling into a huge group over time Katamari Damacy style.

it kills them to go there. they feel degraded and crushed.

Are you kidding me here? It isn't enough that people are helping them out but rather they must also have their feelings conserved? What do they do, make families crawl naked and beg for their food, I know thats not the case. Get real.

If that is what you guys want that for our unfortunate people, then be it

You mean we want people who need charity to be able to get it? Yes that is what we want. So be it.

but dont you realise that 99% of us cant find places like yours to live in?

Actually you can find deals like this in any us city or town, you just have to actually look.


I am not sure what you want, but it seems that feeding, clothing, and housing people isn't enough for you. We must also do it in such a manner so that the persons receivng our charity don't have to admit it? Tough.

We must also do it in such a manner so that the persons receivng our charity don't have to admit it? Tough.

Yes, you got it. and there is no reason for us NOT to do it. because we can. We are rich country by any standard, and we have the means and ability to do it. so why not? because some of them are stupid and wasteful and lazy? not a good reason because most of them are not like that and if we help those to get on their feet they will turn out to be a productive segment of the society. and you never know, may be from them a great leader will rise. welfare should include training programs to get people out of it asap and not make a creer out of it. every system or program, natural or man-made includes ineffeciencies and fraud. our job is to minimize that.

And Yes, I dont like to make the person who is in need to beg. I dont even like them to know that i am the one who is helping them. I prefer that they know that THEIR country is helping them to get up and start producing. not me, not you, not a church and not even the president or the congress. It is their country that is helping them. begging people dont produce leaders, scientists, artists or poets.

if we can eliminate that waste in human abilities, not doing it makes us really stupid. our land and our people are the most precious resources we have, even if we have a lot of each is it really moral to waste any of it? i dont think anyone likes to do that, but our policies now is doing just that.

in short, none of our people should be forced to beg from anyone or any institution no matter how nice they are to the beggers. BEGGING IN THE USA SHOULD NOT EXIST. We are rich and shame on us if we allowed it to exist.

This is a crock. I've used these pantries from time to time and I was treated with FAR more dignity than any government social worker ever afforded me

What i said is not a crock by any means. and what you said is also very true. i never said that those organizations are not nice. but people have feelings.

Actually you make my point for me. Those governement people who didnt help you because you didnt qualify is what makes me say we should do more: straighten out the system, make it logical and effecient as much as we can and make sure that the needy get what they need and dont put stupid people in charge of stupid rules. It is tough and difficult goal. but we must keep trying. not give up. Charaties have their role no question about that, but they should never be the main source that our people go to for help. they only should be for the ones who really cant be helped, the lazy, the druggies, ... you know what i mean. the country cant help those, charity can because they have more tolerance and patience.

I like your list, but you forgot to tell me how many people can that list feed and for how many days. It sounds that you live in a real great area where you can buy 20 Navel oranges for $2, my goodness. i never seen them less than 4 for $1. never. but dont you realise that 99% of us cant find places like yours to live in?

It's called shopping the sales. A newspaper is well worth the cost for the ads. If we can't buy oranges one week we drink orange juice for our Vitamin C.

What I listed was well more than enough food for a person for a week. When we moved here, one of the first purchases we made was an upright freezer. It has MORE than paid for itself with the bargains we've been able to pack away.

Our area is actually one of the higher priced areas for groceries I've lived in. But the $8 a month I spend on the daily paper usually nets me $2-300 dollars in savings. Unless canned vegetables are on sale, we buy them for forty cents a can at the dollar store. We always buy our bread at the thrift store, or off the "day old" rack. The deals I get are not deals it takes a genius to find, you just have to think thrift 100% of the time.

I buy pinto beans 20 pounds at a time, for $10 a bag. I buy rice 10 pounds at a time, for about $5 a bag. I buy vegetable oil by the gallon, I buy ketchup by the gallon, I shop at the dollar store first (generic rice-a-roni 2 for $1).

My wife and I have 5 kids, and the approximately $300 we spend per month on groceries usually includes a couple nights of take home.

It's all about choices, thinkaloud. If you're constantly in money saving mode, saving money's pretty easy.

many people here say let the churches and charity groups take care of that? ooooooh boy. don't you guys know the feeling that this cause to the people who go there? i guess not. I or anyone of my family never gone there but i saw them and talked with them and saw the tears. it kills them to go there. they feel degraded and crushed.

I've been to food pantries in my lifetime and never saw tears, Think Aloud. Not once. EVER.

What I HAVE seen, though, is that people want a free lunch. When someone comes up to me and says they have nothing to eat, I ALWAYS have rice and beans available for them. Because if you're hungry, rice and beans look mighty good. I have on many occasions had families that need help dig up mason jars so I could scoop out rice, beans, cornmeal and flour, and pour out a quart of vegetable oil. And while most truly needy are grateful for it, there are a few who always want something more.

This is a crock. I've used these pantries from time to time and I was treated with FAR more dignity than any government social worker ever afforded me.

The only place I had to beg (LITERALLY beg) was in front of a government social worker...when I was laid off in Nevada.

THEY'RE the ones that strip your dignity.

you forgot to tell me how many people can that list feed and for how many days.

You can't count either? OK< let me help you.

A navel orange is a serving, k? With me so far? that means that each member of the family could have about 3 navel oranges per week.

Macaroni and cheese is 3 servings per box (unless you have kids, then you're lucky to get three servings out of the box. Those fifteen boxes of Macaroni and Cheese represent the side dishes of 5 meals.

Oatmeal? About two to three meals out of the 18 ounce box. So there's 4 meals worth of oatmeal kicked out.

the kids usually go through two packages of hot dogs in a meal, so there's one meal.

I really shouldn't have to do all of this, thinkaloud. If you can't look at what I bought and see that it represents well over a week's worth of food (with no variety; that's why some of the food goes into the pantry and some comes out).

Here's the deal, thinkaloud. I LIVE with this budget. I KNOW what it buys. Don't you EVER stand up and call me a liar again, especially when I throw the facts in your face!

Don't you EVER stand up and call me a liar again, especially when I throw the facts in your face!

comon Gideon, did i ever call you a liar? i never call anyone that in any discussion. calm down man, it is not a fist fight. i said you can beat the hell out of me in that. ok? i also never disputed your facts. only your estimate that you can feed 7 people for a month with $300.

now, one time you say that the list is good for one person for one week (" What I listed was well more than enough food for a person for a week"). then another time you leave it ambigeous ("it represents well over a week's worth of food").

Per your first statement we need 7X42.1=$294.7 per week to feed a family of 7. may be what you meant originaly is you can feed 7 people with $300 for a week (not a month as you wrote). i agree on that. yes you can feed 7 people with $300 for a week . but not for a month. did i do well on counting this time? .
You say "THEY'RE the ones that strip your dignity." and you are absolutely correct. but that is not only in social workers, and not only for the needy. that is a government-employee stupidity and arogance. We all face that not only the needy and the poor. No matter how they make us frustrated and angry, we should never feel bad when we ask for services from our governmenet. that is their job, we pay for it they are not giving us anything from their own pockets. and actually we are their employer. we just have to stand up to that kind of abuse of power and authority. That is not the same as dealing with Charities. they are very nice people but that is the real begging. asking for food from a nice kind person.

No matter how they make us frustrated and angry, we should never feel bad when we ask for services from our governmenet.

So it is ok for the government to treat the poor like crap but you would have us believe that private charities are worse? Get real.

So it is ok for the government to treat the poor like crap but you would have us believe that private charities are worse? Get real

pleeeease, is that what you understood from what i said? we should stand up to those government jerks who abuse the power WE gave them. That is what i said. I also said, they do that not only with the poor , they do it with all of us. their behavior is unacceptable with any of us and we should demand that it be corrected. and i never said that the charities are the cause of the poors feeling bad. it is the fact they had to go to charities that makes them feel bad. i think i made that clear.

My point is simple and i think very clear: people feel that they are begging when they go to charities, and they are in fact begging. However when they apply for welfare, they feel bad enough because they know that their situation must be really bad. but they dont feel that they are begging. you can say,it is a minor point, and it may be, but it makes a huge difference to the children. trust me it does and it affects their attitude toward the society. with welfare they feel that they are needy and THEIR government is helping them and their love for their country rises. with charity they feel THEIR government abondened them and they are forced to beg and i am sure you know what they will be saying about THEIR government and their country.

I hope you get my point.

now, one time you say that the list is good for one person for one week (" What I listed was well more than enough food for a person for a week"). then another time you leave it ambigeous ("it represents well over a week's worth of food").

The one statement was a typo and you know it, thinkaloud. You eat everything I listed there in a week? Good grief, you must weigh 700 pounds or run 6 marathons a week?

You DID call me a liar, actually, thinkaloud, right here:

We can make facts out of illusions. No one else ever done that. The dream of every superpower that ever existed. we just say it and snap our fingers and here it is ..... real things out of nothing.

I KNOW what we spend on food, thinkaloud, you do not. Now, I grant you, most of America's poor do not know (or, possibly do not care...who's to say which?) how to shop in a thrify manner. But perhaps (just perhaps?) it would be in our best interests to TEACH them how to do so.

In previous blogs I have advocated for the return of the "victory garden" mindset. Send seed packets home with schoolchildren. Put greenhouses on the roof of housing projects. Teach people how to do for themselves, as much as they are able. It was John Kennedy, not Barry Goldwater, who said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Don't get me wrong, ThinkAloud, I appreciate your motives if not your methods. But I DON'T appreciate your snide response to some of the FACTS I stated.

with welfare they feel that they are needy and THEIR government is helping them and their love for their country rises. with charity they feel THEIR government abondened them and they are forced to beg and i am sure you know what they will be saying about THEIR government and their country.

Gotta respectfully disagree with you on this one, thinkaloud. I'm using empirical data here, not any hard government study for most of it, butin the neighborhoods where I've lived, I'd say the data's pretty accurate.

I don't know of a single person on welfare who has a love of their country. Most of them don't even show up to vote (this is actually reinforced with gov't statistics; the lowest income neighborhoods typically have the lowest voter turnouts). To a person, every single one I've spoken to (on welfare, this is not always true of those on SSI or Social Security) has complained that the government doesn't pay them more, without even thinking about how they could supplement their income by working. Most that I have met (again, empirical data here, take it for what it's worth) actually refuse to even consider minimum wage employment, and are thus stuck in the rut of being unemployable because they have no work history to move them on to higher paying jobs.

And as for charities, I haven't met a single person who's there because the government let them down. YOU call it begging, I do not, they do not, and the churches certainly do not. Now it's entirely possible you've met a completely different crop of poor and destitute than I have, but it's no more reasonable for you to call yours a representative sample than it is for me to call mine a representative sample. Both of us are operating off of empirical data here.

Let me close this comment with a statement where I think you and I can both agree, ThinkAloud. There is no pat, simple solution to the problem of poverty, and it's going to take a lot of people from a lot of divergent viewpoints working together on the problem to deal with poverty when and where it is actually a problem.

Same old thesis echoing the welfare food stamp queen with the first color TV in the ghetto. Cherry picking to expose crass ignorance and sloth will always get a conservative reaction. The fact remains that a wider view should make clear that in the US there are indeed too many poor, which should not be juxtaposed with third world countries--we take pride in being better than that. I believe if you research honestly you might find some very legitimate poverty in the nation whose wealth is hoarded fiercely by 1% of the population. Though I have never ordered a pizza myself, I live in a middle class neighborhood that is lit up constantly by pizza deliveries.