Media Release: Commissioners and select staff accept food stamp challenge
This in via email from the offices of the Lucas County Commissioners:
COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT FOOD STAMP CHALLENGE FROM TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES
In an attempt to highlight the eating reality of families in Lucas County who live on an average federal food stamp budget, the Board of Lucas County Commissioners and select staff will accept a food stamp challenge from Toledo Area Ministries at a news conference on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. at Immaculate Conception Church, 434 Western Ave, Toledo.
Commissioners and staff will agree to spend no more than $21.00 each on food for the course of one week, starting on September 18, 2007 and ending at the Commissioners regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September 25, 2007. Commissioners will provide a personal report on their experiences at the conclusion of the challenge.
Pastor Kevin Perrine, Volunteer Coordinator of Feed Your Neighbor, a project of Toledo Area Ministries, approached the Commissioners about participating in the challenge, which many members of Congress have also attempted this year.
As an additional part of the challenge, Feed Your Neighbor will also encourage the Commissioners to purchase one of their meals from a FYN pantry in Lucas County.
More than 31,000 low-income families in Lucas County receive food stamps. More than half of the recipients are children and a good portion of them are over 60 years old.
WHAT: Commissioners Accept Food Stamp Challenge
WHEN: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: Immaculate Conception Church, 434 Western Ave
Back in May when Tim Ryan joined the House Hunger Caucus for a similar based challenge, I wrote a post on my feelings about how this was being done. I followed closely the comments on Tim Ryan’s blog about this and it’s been discussed quite a bit in the blogosphere as far as sharing similar concerns to mine that while it’s not easy it is possible to have more than peanut butter sandwiches and cottage cheese.
Others have focused on problems with the $21.00 figure being used, a good post on a couple who kept their food bill to $159.00 for the month in what they called the Liberty Food Challenge shows what it is possible to do.
BizzyBlog’s Tom Blumer has covered this topic before as well, including one of the earlier articles that questioned the $21.00 amount when Oregon was doing this and it can be read here.
I’m not as concerned with the amount selected, though it would be easier to buy a few more groceries if the $32.00 figure was used. My main concern is still the nutritional aspect and the belief that providing information on what it takes to do this the right way while taking some planning and less reliance on convenience foods would be a much larger benefit to those struggling to make their food dollar budget stretch than a mini survival episode where elected officials and their staff suffer for a week or so.
Here’s hoping that Lucas County Commissioners and their staff show the rest of the nation how to do a Food Stamp Challenge the healthy way…If any of them need any help when it comes to shopping? I’m just an email away.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:22 amThe Ann Arbor newspaper covered this story about the Food Stamp challenge up in A2 sometime last week or before and it’s quite an interesting series of articles to read. I don’t think I can rise up to that challenge because I need my Sara Lee Strawberry Cheesecake Ice Cream!!!
September 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pmHere are some of the links that I was referring to:
http://www.mlive.com/jackson/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-22/118943321545330.xml&coll=3
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/families_try_shopping_on_a_foo.html
http://www.mlive.com/annarbor/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-24/1189089717276030.xml&coll=2
September 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI don’t think it would be all that hard to spend just $21 a week per person on food.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pmOK, too many different numbers and I’m confused…LOL!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:09 pmIs it $21 for a whole week or $21 a day?
$21.00 per week per person, it is confusing.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pmWHOA :O OK, as good as I am at stretching a dollar, I’m not sure I could do this. Especially since I am a milk addict and 2% runs anywhere from $3.40 to $4.20 a gallon, which I think is insanely asinine! I wish them the best of luck!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pmFunny…
I don’t know a conservative that won’t swear they haven’t seen someone in front of them at Kroger’s buying lobster with food stamps.
I’ve heard the story so often, I just assumed that everyone who used food stamps ate lobster all the time.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm$21.00 a week, where are they getting these figures?? I know people who get $800+ per month in foodstamps.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pmIt’s being based on this
September 18th, 2007 at 2:32 pmFor someone to get over $800 a month they would have to have seven family members…easy Chart that shows the maximum amount of benefit in Cuyahoga County which I’m pretty sure is not much different from Lucas County.
Maximum benefit for one person is $155.00 per month – which is $38.75 a week. From what I understand the $21.00 figure is stated to be the average of what is received since most do not receive the maximum.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pmFor a household of two, we spend about $325 a month ($81.25 a week) in groceries alone. So this $21 a week would be cramping my style!
September 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pmThat $21 figure assumes that such eligible recipients have other income and would also be contributing some of that other income toward food costs. It may be correct that the $21 is the ‘average’ but those ‘average’ food stamp recipients have to have other income in order to be at the $21 figure. The eligibility rules and formulas take into consideration all income and assets in determining the amount of the food stamps you’re eligible to recieve.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm21 double cheeseburgers, breakfast wraps, or 4-piece nuggets, a cup of water is free. OH YEAH – 3 trips to McD’s a day, all on Uncle Sam, Cousin Strickland, and Brother Connop.
PLUS – it is likely that such recipient is getting energy assistance, health care assistance, day-care assistance, section 8 assistance, and Connop’s ART assistance; therefore, a larger percentage of our well deserving citizen’s income is “disposable.” Here comes a PS3, big screen TV, and a nice car.
Being poor in America is better than anywhere else on earth.
The A-Hole.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pmKonop, sorry Ben.
The A-Hole.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pmThe A-Hole….mmmmm….I wonder what the “A” stands for.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pmA-Hole, I don’t think you can use the foodstamp debit card to buy food at places like McDonald’s, unless something has dramatically changed.
I’m not sure if I can dispute the being poor in America is better than anywhere else, except to point out that being poor is not exactly easy anywhere, and I know quite a few people who don’t have a PS3 or even a PS2, nice cars or big screen TV’s that struggle within the current system.
Perhaps some of us still believe:
From a federal standpoint, I understand completely the libertarian principles of believing that the federal government was not supposed to be as heavily involved/involved at all in providing social services. From a personal position I’m more of an advocate of the state/local governments determining what each community needs as opposed to the unfunded or partially funded mandates that currently exist.
It’s also obvious that since January 8, 1964 when President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “war on poverty” what has been tried has not worked. We still have families without health care, without adequate access to food, etc., this raises the question of can poverty even here in the US ever be eliminated? I don’t think so, but it is possible to do more than what is being done and as long as we as a community don’t do more? The government will continue to do it their own way whether it works or not.
I’ve often heard it stated that some that oppose the current system believe this should be done by non-governmental charities and agencies, however, these non-governmental charities and agencies don’t receive the amount of help they need…It appears to me that circle needs to be broken first.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pmNo, you cannot use foodstamps at McD’s or any other fast food restaurant.
Foodstamps do not cover: cleaning supplies, diapers, baby wipes, toilet paper, shampoo, soap, laundry detergent, paper towels, deodorant, etc.
The A-hole said:
“PLUS – it is likely that such recipient is getting energy assistance, health care assistance, day-care assistance, section 8 assistance, and Connop’s ART assistance; therefore, a larger percentage of our well deserving citizen’s income is “disposable.” Here comes a PS3, big screen TV, and a nice car.
Being poor in America is better than anywhere else on earth.”
Wow. You really are an a-hole!
Energy assistance doesn’t cover the whole bill – only a portion of it. That doesn’t make it affordable to a family living on minimum wage.
Let’s pretend that the assistance you referred to really does cover all your daycare and healthcare needs.
Section 8 housing is terrible. It isn’t safe, and it certainly isn’t luxurious. The cost is 1/3 of the applicant’s income.
Hmmm. And let’s talk about that nice car. Are you kidding? If they are lucky enough to have a nice car, they have a car loan – and the insurance costs that go with it. Everyone needs a reliable car to be able to get to work to support their family. How much gas do you put in your car each week? My van eats about $50 weekly. Insurance at about $100 monthly, and you just spent $300 in a month. If you only make $7 per hour, and work full time, that is only around $1,000 net.
So let’s break that down: $1,000 for the month
minus rent – $330 – leaves you with $670
minus utilities for the month (including phone, gas, electric) let’s call that $200 with assistance – leaves you with $470.
minus a $200 car note and $100 for insurance – you are at $170.
let’s assume you got an economy car and let’s call gas for the month $100.
We will pretend that foodstamps cover all your food needs for the month, and you have $70 left of that “disposable” income. You still need to buy all those cleaning supplies, shampoo, etc. God forbid that you should have an emergency – need to change the oil in that car – or need to buy new underwear.
Let’s say the family gives up the car and takes TARTA around town. A weekly bus pass per person is $10. For a family of four, that’s still $40 per week – $160 per month. This increases your “disposable” income from $70 to $310. To make it easy, we can take $60 off for those pesky cleaning supplies and other miscellaneous items, leaving you with $250 each month of “mad” money. But wait – the kids need stuff like – haircuts, shoes, clothing, etc.
I work with homeless families here in Toledo every single day. The majority of people do not want to spend their lives on assistance. Public assistance barely helps them get through a rough time in their lives. They struggle to make ends meet and to get ahead. They welcome the opportunity to make a decent living and get off public assistance.
They don’t deserve your disdain, but your compassion.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pmThanks Liz for the specifics and I know several families who are struggling trying to avoid becoming homeless. It’s a rough time for many out there and I’ve yet to meet anyone who enjoyed going through what you have to go through to even get public assistance.
I realize the stories of those out there milking the system and I know they do exist but those who do that are in the minority.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:06 amWe all choose our own destiny. My family is making ends meet and when an emergency comes up, we struggle. But I choose not to work another PT job. Would it help us out financially? Sure it would, but it would also take time away from my family. Instead, you buckle down, bargain shop, choose not to dine out, the options are endless. I’m sick of my tax dollars going to these low-lifes who choose to sit home on their bum instead of lowering themselves to getting a job at McD’s or Kroger. Heaven forbid!!
September 19th, 2007 at 7:36 amLow-lifes? dell_diva, that’s a bit harsh to marginalize them because not all of them are considered as low-lifes because people can truly fall on hard times beyond their control. Grow some compassion..jeeze.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:00 amCommissioners are paid $84,000+ per year not counting benefits. The median income for Lucas County is around $38 thou. Perhaps a better challenge would be for the commissioners to live like the rest of us, and deal with covering all “our” bills first, then the outrageous levys, fees, assessments, put on us by the county and city. Do all of that after the fed,state, and city take their cut to help the “underserved”. Let’s see the commissioners do that. And for Commissioner Konop to admit that he spends $3 on a cup of coffee speaks volumes about his personal fiscal responsibility to say nothing of how he views the value of a dollar. If Mr. Konop gave up just one latte a day he could feed one person based on his flawwed $21 food stamp figure.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amFred, I understand your point completely about doing a challenge like this for a week versus having to live making the median income, or in my families case, less than the median income. When I read the Blade article this morning it was obvious that my concern about showing how it could be done while still providing nutrition was a valid one given the shopping cart items selected by Commissioner Skeldon Wozniak. Regular Oatmeal rather than a box of instant would have saved major bucks as just one small example.
Yet, when it comes to Ben Konop and the $3.00 cups of coffee, most of the coffee houses around here would go belly up if it were not for those like him who do have the disposable income to spend on their beverages. These businesses do provide jobs and add to the economy.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:04 amFred (of Fred FRED LeFEBVRE and the morning Noise)
Ben Konop isn’t fiscally responsible because he spends $3 on a cup of coffee? I had to wait in a line 6 deep at Beaners this morning to buy my $4 coffee. He has a lot of company. How is it any concern of your how he spends his own money on legal goods?
Perhaps a better challenge would be for the commissioners to live like the rest of us…
September 19th, 2007 at 11:41 amI could be wrong but I believe the average income for someone with your job is a bit higher then $38K. Didn’t you go to court a numbers of years back to keep your pay private, arguing “trade secret”.
My point about Mr. Konop’s $3 coffee is that if he can spend that much on coffee and not think much about it, what value does he place on a dollar that other’s may have to spend or that he spends on programs in the county. I have no problem with him buying the coffee, he helps keep the Downtown Latte in business, and it’s his money. I just want he and the other commissioners to let me keep more of mine. I did go to court to keep my salary private, not because it was a trade secret, but because it’s my salary paid by the company I work for not by you the taxpayer. I don’t know what the average is for someone with my job. I’ve never been curious or rude enough to ask people what they make for a living if their in the private sector. I also haven’t hidden my identity on here by using a false screen name like SensorG, people know it’s me when I post which isn’t often, Lisa can back that up. I did some shopping this morning and bought enough groceries for the week for a fraction less than $21. It includes items low in fat, and cholesterol, no trans fats and enough to have breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the week. I will be posting photos on my site (shameless plug) and explaining it on air tomorrow. No one is denying people are in need, but this publicity stunt by the commissioners does nothing to change it. They could do what I did, buy the food then donate it to the Salvation Army food bank.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pmIts official, I love blogging and glasscityjungle.
LisaRenee – Thoughtful and insightful as always, we can wrestle with the fundamental belief system at length.
Liz — GREAT response for the most part. See it is possible to respectfully disagree, debate, and banter about FACTS. I challenge many of your facts and assertions, but still GREAT COMMENT.
My screenname is ironic, sarcastic, and true to the stereotype of my profession. My post intentionally picked unhealthy McD’s as an illustrative example which some seemed to miss, must not have watched “Fast Food Nation” or simply did not care to comment on.
“Family living on minimum wage.” Liz said.
Entry level jobs are not meant to and should not be perceived as designed to support a family. Unfortunately, entry level jobs are now described as “minimum wage” jobs. Toledo takes it further to require a “living wage” be paid for positions that largely are filled by unskilled, uneducated workers. Thus forcing up costs for employers, squeezing out young, dedicated, hard working youth who traditionally took those jobs and were willing to learn a trade or skill at those jobs.
Toledo living wage, $10.57 an hour. 10.57 X 40 hours X 4 weeks = $1691.20
Ohio minimum wage – $6.85 X 40 X 4 = $1096.00.
Michigan minimum wage – 7.40 X 40 X 4 = $1184.00
So one person, working one full time job, and one half time job, can earn $2000 a month. And, in Ohio, would qualify for many public assistance programs. Ohio recently increased its child health care minimum requirements to twice the federal poverty standards, making the children in a family of 4, who’s parents make more the $60,000 a year, eligible for Ohio’s child medicaid.
All of this ignores the pure political grandstanding nature of the $21.00 challenge.
Thanks for reading…keep on blogging.
The A-Hole.
theassholelawyer.blogspot.com
September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pmFred is correct, he has only posted here under his real name and I understand your point Fred, I’ve felt the same way when other elected officials did this very same Food Stamp Challenge. I really hope they take some type of lesson from the experience and that it would somehow lead to an increased attention from the community as to the issue of how the challenge of providing for a family on a limited income is difficult. That there should be help out there as far as how to get the most out of their limited dollars. Yet, just as the ones before who have done this, there has been no long term accomplishment seeming to result from it, just a temporary public relations story.
A-Hole, I’m glad you are enjoying blogging and sharing your point of view. One of the best things about doing this blog is having people share their views. I think we all learn from each other’s perspective even if we end up agreeing to disagree on certain points.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pmThe invasion of Toledo Talk has arrived! Run for the nearest shelter!
September 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pmOkay. Entry-level jobs are not designed to support a family.
Are you suggesting that a parent with children should work 60 hours a week to support his or her family? Many, many of the working poor are female, single parent households. Who is taking care of the children if Mom is always at work? Oh right – that would be connected to an increase in gang activity, etc.
Are you also suggesting that each person has an equal opportunity to achieve higher paying jobs? Reality is that everyone is not equal. Some people simply will never make more than minimum wage. Is it right for us to sit back and judge them for their failure? Perhaps they simply lack the skills and abilities necessary to do better? Is that inherently their fault? Many factors affect an individual’s ability to achieve, and I think it is presumptuous for us to judge others by the expectations we have for our own lives.
Jobs are leaving Toledo. Families in poverty – with limited personal resources – have a hard enough time getting one job (parttime or fulltime). To suggest that they could work both a fulltime and parttime job, when jobs are hard to find, is almost funny. Even people with higher education are having a hard time getting jobs. So, as the food chain goes, those who were already unemployed are having an even harder time becoming employed as those who recently became unemployed are taking the few jobs that are available.
The whole purpose of this $21 thing was to draw attention to the difficulty those living in poverty face everyday. It was intended to help educate the public about the reality of living on assistance. It is insane to me, that people have chosen to use it as an opportunity to blast the working poor, and to criticize Ben Konop for drinking coffee! People who make good money have earned the right to spend that money as they see fit. I see no reason to paint all people in poverty as low-lifes, living high on the hog, abusing the system!
September 19th, 2007 at 1:23 pmby the way – i do see this as a friendly, respectful banter.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pmLiz, I agree, 99.9% of the time the discussion here is friendly and respectful even when dealing with topics that can be a bit personal for people.
I appreciate very much the fact that people who do participate here can have fun, even tease people at times but try to remain respectful. It makes my job as the blogger enjoyable.
I understand what this whole Food Stamp Challenge was intended to do, and while I don’t dispute the importance of this information if the real goal was for the public to be more informed it would be better served by talking with families who really are struggling with their food budget on a weekly, monthly, long term basis. Discover how what they do to survive this, what are their solutions, since they can’t at the end of a week go back to spending a higher amount.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pmIt’s that walking a mile in their shoes kindof theory. How do we truly know just by talking to them – if we haven’t had to experience it ourselves? Talk is cheap! And people rarely – truly – listen!
When the “haves” are faced with the reality of trying to live like the “have nots” on such limited means – that can speak volumes.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm“Work 60 hours a week to support your family?” YES
“Judge them for their failures” I have neither disparaged nor judged anyone.
“Suggesting that everyone has equal opportunity” YES. The SAME? No.
“Many of the poor are female, single working households.”
EXACTLY, The attack, deterioration, and abandonment of the two parent family is a direct cause of poverty. The personal choice to have children (sex = children + choice of mate = single parent)and not have an intact family is a direct cause of poverty. The failure to educate yourself to a basic level, failure to provide education to your children, and demand achievement in school is a direct cause of poverty.
“Is that inherently their fault?” Inherently, no. Do personal choices dictate future consequences and success. YES. Are people inherently disadvantaged and burdened to the point of an inability to improve, educate, and climb the economic ladder. No.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE – read Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
The A-Hole.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmYou are a single, white, republican male. Aren’t ya?
Equal Opportunity is not EQUAL if it is not the SAME!
The failure to educate yourself . . . . NO NO NO! We are talking about generations of poverty! There you go, blaming the poor again.
Of course personal choices affect living situations and success. But you are wrong. There ARE people who are inherently disadvantaged and burdened to the point of an inability to improve, educate and climb the economic ladder. Some of them suffer from mental illness, some from a lifetime of abuse, some were not gifted with enough intelligence to make them competitive. There is no level playing field!
And I am not suggesting that it be otherwise – but that we simply show compassion and try to gain an understanding of those circumstances that plaque many who live in poverty.
People – being human – will make mistakes as they go about their lives. They will choose the wrong mate and children will be born. (How many of us know that we have made a bad choice at the time?) Do we blame those children or punish them for their circumstances? And how about those women who thought they made a good choice of spouse? Things are going along great, they have a couple of kids, and suddenly it all changes. Are you suggesting that families stay together – no matter how toxic they are – for the sake of finances?
And while that mom is working that 60 hour week, I again ask the question – who is raising the children?
We cannot paint all people with the same brush and come up with anything close to reality.
By the way – you say you have never judged anyone – and I challenge that. Every human being alive is making constant judgments of all the people around him. You are judging me in this blog, and I am juding you. That is reality. The minute we learn that a person is receiving public assistance, we immediately begin to formulate opinions about them – based on our own biases and experiences. And I include myself here. That is simply human nature. The important thing is to recognize our preconceived notions and our judgments and suspend those feelings to allow for individual circumstances and differences.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pmIn 1964 when Johnson declared a war on poverty in this country we were not facing some of the societal changes that have happened since. As you pointed out A-Hole, the decline the two parent family unit as well as the decline of the extended family so that when a divorce, a death or some other life altering event hit a family, a grandparent could potentially be living in the same home or very near by to provide the additional family support. Now, many of these grandparents are still working and/or no longer in the home but in senior citizen living arrangements.
Most people who marry and have children don’t plan on things not working out. That I know from personal experience when I was a single mother with five children. It was difficult, but thankfully for me I had the support of friends and family, others are not so lucky.
Where do we draw the line at providing assistance has been something we have debated as a country for decades. One thing that is obvious though is through these decades the spirit of the community with the exception of catastrophe’s is not one of what it used to be either. Society follows cycles so perhaps we will eventually return to more of a community attitude rather than the one right that is more self centered oriented. Until then, while I agree with Liz that the “walk a mile in my shoes” has some public value, unless something of substance comes out from these public information experiences, those who are dealing with the struggle weekly aren’t going to see much in their lives change.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pmWhew…all this reading of intense posts makes me wanna go out and buy a Rack of Lamb for supper.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pmLiz –
Married, white republican/libertarian male – Guilty.
I said I “have neither judged nor disparaged anyone” meaning IN MY BLOG COMMENTS. Of course we all make judgments daily.
Great banter and debate everyone. I look forward to more, but now I need to hit the dollar menu on my way home.
The A-Hole.
theassholelawyer.blogspot.com
September 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pm[...] Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has the Commissioners’ release. [...]
September 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI think we should spend more money as a nation bombing Iraq and other places and then helping to build them back up. This keeps the military industrial complex happy in this country.
Let’s give all our extra money to Dick Cheney and Halliburton and begrudge a few poor folks their food stamps. Money spent on unnecessary military spending in never as bad as money spent on social programs. (sarcasm intended)
Or better yet, let’s rebuild our country’s infrastructure to enhance our quality of life. No, to the Limbaugh conservatives that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
That being said, reading about the commissioners trying to get by on $21 per person for food for a week is nauseating. Anything to get a little publicity.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:45 pmWhat a bunch of humanitarians…they are the best and we are fortunate to have them. Let’s follow the lead of these great human beings, $21 per person per week, show people your empathy, save the environment. $3.00 lattes everyday to keep our local college students employed…$4.25 a week for a gallon of milk, keep our farmers in business…$6.00 for the garbage removal fee, let’s keep our garbage collectors collecting.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pmGreatness like this only comes around once in a while…let’s send thank you cards to them for showing us the righteous way to spread the misery. I’m so filled with pride, Toledo Pride, right now that I can’t even put a correct sentence together…I’m speechless.
Greatness pure greatness!!! The magnanimity…the Omnipotent have shown us the way yet again. We should be grateful that they are willing to make this sacrifice, this is a sacrifice for us, we owe them not to criticize their actions…they are doing this for me, for you, for the county, for all people who can’t afford to eat. What mercy they have bestowed on us the wretched…sing their praise…live their example…bread for all…all hail…all hail! Bah…bah…bah!
Wow, lets not let anything like FACTS get in the way. I’m even willing in this case to let a government agency provide the facts….
—————————————————–
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
* 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.
As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. 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.
While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only 2 percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.
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.
—————————————————-
Sorry Liz, but it’s all about choices. Obviously things like microwaves, cell phones, cars and cable television are more important to some people. These same people think government should make sure they have enough to eat. I can see a few ways those very few people who might have to live on $21/week of taxpayer help could easily find more money for what is truly important.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:36 pmThat data written in 2004 has been passed around the internet quite a bit, most times it does not come from the original document which a copy can be found here, I think everyone realizes that the Heritage group was selective about the information they presented so fit the message they wanted to send.
If you really want accurate information since that report uses information from 2002, you might want to read the actual material from the Federal Government, a report was released in August on Poverty in America. Or any of the other several documents the government has out there that gives the full picture, the good, the bad and the confusing…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:08 amYes, and the Federal Government is trust-worthy…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:06 amLiz said “Jobs are leaving Toledo. Families in poverty – with limited personal resources – have a hard enough time getting one job (parttime or fulltime). “
Part time jobs are easy to get, multiple part time jobs and full time jobs are hard to get and keep. Most places do not want to hire full time employees because they don’t want to pay benefits. Companies like Kroger and Wal-Mart have very sophisticated software systems that make sure that employees are scheduled in ways that they will never make full time.
If you fill in for a sick co-work a few weeks in a row, you may find your hours cut for the next few weeks to make sure you don’t hit “full time”. So much for working hard and stepping forward to pitch in. Companies like Kroger and Wal-Mart also make it impossible to plan ahead. One week you may work 30 hours all during the day and the next week you may be only working 15 hours all at night.
Trying to keep anything job or raising a family with random swing work schedules becomes very difficult. I worked at Kroger for a number of years and when I wanted to get another part time night job, Kroger told me “no, I had to be available all the time and I could not restrict my schedule of nights and weekends to work another job.
It’s quite a trap.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:26 amGiven the Heritage.org collated their report from information they got from the government? If the initial information isn’t trustworthy neither is their report…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am