Poverty in Oklahoma City

[JenX67]

With a new documentary on poverty in America airing Monday night on HBO, I thought it was a good time to start a thread on poverty in Oklahoma City. The documentary is called Paycheck to Paycheck: The Life and Times of Katrina Gilbert.

The following poverty statistics (2012) are for the entire state; however, Oklahoma City's rate of poverty (17.6 percent) is higher than the state's overall rate (more than 16 percent). Approximately 640,000 Oklahomans live below the poverty level. Approximately 107,855 Oklahoma Cityans live below the poverty level. (That is 17.6 percent of the city-only population, 599,199+)

• Oklahoma has the 16th highest poverty rate in the nation.
• Since 1969, the poverty rate for Oklahomans 65 and over has decreased dramatically. It is now at 10 percent (2012).
• During the same period of time, the poverty rate for Oklahoma children under 18 increased. It went from 20 percent to 24 percent.
• In Oklahoma, the current (2012) poverty rate for children under 5 is 31 percent.
• According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Oklahoma has the nation's third-highest rate of people working at or below the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
• Single parents who work full-time for minimum wage fall below the poverty line.
• The poverty rate for single-parent households headed by females is 37 percent. In married-couple families, it's 9 percent.
• The poverty rate is 28 percent for adults over 25 who didn't finish high school. It's 15 percent for those who graduated high school. It's 5 percent for those who graduated college.
• The poverty rate is 30 percent for African Americans; 29 percent for Hispanics; 23 percent for Native Americans. It's 13 percent for non-Hispanic Caucasians.

SOURCE: NewsOK, January 2014

[coov23]

If we're going off of world facts, anyone that makes 33,000 dollars a year is in the upper .01 percentile of wealth in the world. We say that's near poverty in America, but in terms of worldly wealth, it's actually rich. Just a little fact. Maybe we, as Americans, should start living in our means and not off credit lines so much. Just a thought, with facts.

[PWitty]

Is the poverty line that your basing those numbers on specific to OK? That is one thing I hate about the poverty line is that a lot of stats use the same poverty line for NY/CA that they use for KS/OK. Well when you do that of course OK/KS have a higher rate of poverty. The COL isn't as high so incomes aren't as high. Most times poverty stats are based on a federally set poverty line, so I'm just curious.

[JenX67]

You make a great point. The poor in America still live much better than most of humanity. And, yet, 43 percent still spend more than they make every year. "Debt slavery" is a way of life in America. The most disturbing stat for me comes from UNICEF: Of all developed nations in the world, the U.S. is second only to Romania for child poverty.

Here are the 2012 poverty rates for children in Oklahoma. Maybe our numbers will be better for 2013, but last year was worse than the prior five with the exception of 2010. The rate that year was .3 percent higher than 2012.

Click here for information about the growing income disparity in Oklahoma.

[JenX67]

According to the NEWSOK article from January 2014, the stats are from the Census Bureau which cites "637,429 Oklahomans below the poverty level in 2012 — $11,170 for a single person, $15,130 for two people, $23,050 for a family of four. The figures are based on federal estimates of the amount of cash income it takes a family to cover basic expenses such as food, housing, utilities and clothes."

Click here to see how the Census Bureau measures poverty. Poverty thresholds set by the Census Bureau do NOT vary geographically. I agree -- it's really important to consider this against the cost of living in Oklahoma. In 2013, we led the nation in the lowest cost of living. We were second in the nation for cost of doing business. This sounds good, but is this paramount to low wages?

Click this next link to see per capita income in Oklahoma. We rank in the bottom 10 at 41. Sorry in advance for the Wikipedia link. The data does come from the Census Bureau.

So, all these things have to be weighted to gain an accurate view of poverty in OKC.

[soonerguru]

With a new documentary on poverty in America airing Monday night on HBO, I thought it was a good time to start a thread on poverty in Oklahoma City. The documentary is called Paycheck to Paycheck: The Life and Times of Katrina Gilbert.

The following poverty statistics (2012) are for the entire state; however, Oklahoma City's rate of poverty (17.6 percent) is higher than the state's overall rate (more than 16 percent). Approximately 640,000 Oklahomans live below the poverty level. Approximately 107,855 Oklahoma Cityans live below the poverty level. (That is 17.6 percent of the city-only population, 599,199+)

• Oklahoma has the 16th highest poverty rate in the nation.
• Since 1969, the poverty rate for Oklahomans 65 and over has decreased dramatically. It is now at 10 percent (2012).
• During the same period of time, the poverty rate for Oklahoma children under 18 increased. It went from 20 percent to 24 percent.
• In Oklahoma, the current (2012) poverty rate for children under 5 is 31 percent.
• According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Oklahoma has the nation's third-highest rate of people working at or below the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
• Single parents who work full-time for minimum wage fall below the poverty line.
• The poverty rate for single-parent households headed by females is 37 percent. In married-couple families, it's 9 percent.
• The poverty rate is 28 percent for adults over 25 who didn't finish high school. It's 15 percent for those who graduated high school. It's 5 percent for those who graduated college.
• The poverty rate is 30 percent for African Americans; 29 percent for Hispanics; 23 percent for Native Americans. It's 13 percent for non-Hispanic Caucasians.

SOURCE: NewsOK, January 2014

What policies should OKC government pursue, in your opinion, to address this problem?

[okcpulse]

According to the NEWSOK article from January 2014, the stats are from the Census Bureau which cites "637,429 Oklahomans below the poverty level in 2012 — $11,170 for a single person, $15,130 for two people, $23,050 for a family of four. The figures are based on federal estimates of the amount of cash income it takes a family to cover basic expenses such as food, housing, utilities and clothes."

Click here to see how the Census Bureau measures poverty. Poverty thresholds set by the Census Bureau do NOT vary geographically. I agree -- it's really important to consider this against the cost of living in Oklahoma. In 2013, we led the nation in the lowest cost of living. We were second in the nation for cost of doing business. This sounds good, but is this paramount to low wages?

Click this next link to see per capita income in Oklahoma. We rank in the bottom 10 at 41. Sorry in advance for the Wikipedia link. The data does come from the Census Bureau.

So, all these things have to be weighted to gain an accurate view of poverty in OKC.

It is worth noting that the per capita income ranking published on the Wikipedia page is per capita income by place of work. The actual per capita income of Oklahoma in 2012 was $39,006, ranking Oklahoma 32.

The actual per capita income includes income from place of work, dividends, rental and propriety sources. People have disagreed whether this figure is viable, but it is, because no matter the source, it is your income. So even though income by place of work (wages) is 41, Oklahomans obviously seek other sources of income which does impact Oklahoma's ranking. Texas, for instance, ranks 25 in per capita income by place of work and 25 in actual per capita income (counting other sources of income).

[Mel]

No child should go hungry. I would rather see an expansion on free chow programs through the school or community center. Even during the weekend. That would help make sure the money would go for food.

[betts]

The Food Bank has a great backpack program where they send food for kids for the weekend home with them in a pre-packed backpack.

[Laramie]

Every September-October, I purchase five brand new coats and place them in the trunk of my car. As I'm driving around going about my regular routine, there are always children walking around without a coat. Do you have a coat? When they say 'No.' I open the truck and ask which one of these would you like and as they put it on and it fits, I just tell them--'take care of it!' The immediate 'Thank You' and smiles I get in return is enough for me to know that I have successfully helped some in my community.

In the nation of opportunities we live in today, there shouldn't be any children in the United States walking around 'cold' and/or 'hungry.'

Once I had a parent tell me that they wouldn't accept any charity. I told her that this wasn't charity--you need to pay this forward to someone else less fortunate than you when you get back on your feet.

So well do I remember my mother working ten to twelve hours a day as a barber (six-day week) to pay the bills and provide us (boys 5,10,13,15) with the basic necessities. My father passed away when his youngest was three. Mother never remarried. I remember a male friend of hers offering to marry my mom; she told him, 'when my husband died, a part of me died with him--and I think that's the part you are looking for.'


I don't know how we survived; somehow whenever she would reach into her purse--the money was there for shoes, slacks, sweaters, coats and whatever our family of four boys needed. God rest her soul, she was a saint--she had patience, wisdom--she taught us to walk away from fights. "It's best to say, yond he run than they he lay, you can always come back and first another day."

Mother showed no fear of anything, she handled her business as best she could and then she put the rest in God's hands. My friends tease us today saying, how did your mother (a national Baptist) with a husband who was a CME Methodist--raise four boys to become Roman Catholics was a mystery indeed...

"Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.

[PennyQuilts]

They set the poverty line at the national level, which is absurd. People allegedly are poorer here but that doesn't take into account the lower cost of living. I could not possibly live as well on our current income back east. Your dollar, especially your housing dollar, stretches much further, here.

Moreover, in the past twenty years, many people have stopped marrying before having children. If you aren't married, you only count the custodial parent's income (which is often zilch if she is "living in sin" with a working father). An unmarried intact couple counts only one income. A married couple counts both incomes. On paper, the first is far more likely to be living in poverty when their actual income (not counting public assistance) is exactly the same as the second.

[traxx]

The problem is that people just look at these numbers and think "Let's just throw some more public assitance their way." I can't speak for other states but for Oklahoma a lot of it (not all) is by choice.

Now mind you, the children have no choice and that's what's sad. But the children see very little of this public assistance. Hence the reason for Backpack program. They came up with that to give a benefit directly to children who need it. Even then the children don't always get the benefit of the program. An OK Food Bank person told me once of a child on the backpack program that always had a backpack covered in dirt when he returned it to school on Monday. The teacher asked him why and he said he hid it under his house, otherwise the grownups would take the food and he wouldn't get any.

When I was married, we lived in a smallish town and we bought an older house that had just been completely redone. After moving in we found out that we lived kitty corner to a meth house. It was a family business with the grandparents at the top of the business, their kids in their 20s and 30s and the grandkids. They had children in that house. When they cooked, it smelled horrible just being outside. I can't imagine what those children dealt with inside. The house had exposed insulation for years until they finally bricked it. People had called the cops on them in the past but they would always be back within a few weeks doing it again.

I've seen couples with children who don't wear the proper clothes for the weather. Probably because they don't have the clothes. But the children wear a Marlboro t-shirt or Camel shirt or somesuch. They don't have the money to buy their kids proper clothing but they smoke so many cigarettes that they get free t-shirts and jackets from the tobacco companies.

My ex wife has an aunt who's in her 50s and still lives with her parents. She works jobs at the quickstop until she gets fired and moves on to the next gas station. She just doesn't want to be responsible. I've had relatives myself with similar stories. They dont' want to move out of poverty. They get by with what they have or who they can mooch off of (that sometimes being Joe Taxpayer). They don't want to live responsible lives.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I've lived in Oklahoma my whole life and have been around this state enough, been to many of the towns have been related to these types of people that I think it tells the greater story. I don't believe these are isolated stories. These people don't want to take responsibility for themselves or their offspring, their children learn this way of life and grow up and do the same with their children and it becomes a viscious cycle. I know that government assistance is actually needed by some people. But for these other types of people, the assistance, by and large, perpetuates the problem instead of solving it.

I don't know it it's a cultural issue or a genrational issue or both. But a lot of this poverty in Oklahoma is by choice.

[JenX67]

I'm working on writing that textbook now.

@SoonerGuru
Here are a few ideas, many of which have been or are already being pursued in OKC with varying degrees of passion.

This list was composed by a group of writers for Global Urban Development Magazine and inspired by the work of Amartya Sen, a Harvard professor of economics and philosophy. These "local authority actions" are inclusive of cities across the globe.

Instituting participatory urban processes that give a voice in decision-making to poor and marginalized populations.

Partnering with communities, community-based organizations and non-governmental organizations including advocacy groups, on community-based initiatives.

Providing access to infrastructure, and urban services.

Initiating integrated programs for the improvement of the urban environment.

Supporting the development of small businesses and micro-enterprises.

Fostering citizenship and social inclusion.

Collaborating with foundations and philanthropic organizations on social projects.

Alleviating the hardships endured by poor and marginalized populations.

Initiating special programs to reach vulnerable groups.

[JenX67]

Back in the fall, I came across these animated gifts that illustrate how income inequality in the states has grown over time. A factual discussion about poverty in Oklahoma City needs to include accurate numbers for growing income disparity. I will try to post the GIFs. If they don't appear go here and see them. (Red implies lower within-state inequality, green implies higher.)

[PennyQuilts]

Treating generational poverty is different than treating families who simply fall on hard times, typically from a job loss or illness. Transitional poverty (for instance, new immigrants or a student) is a different type of poverty.

Often, people who teach about poverty seem to primarily use a densely urban model that focuses on high population centers with large groups trapped in generational poverty and high numbers of new immigrants who struggle with language and cultural issues in their transition. These groups often deal with high crime, often violent, and bad schools. It some ways, it makes sense to use a densely urban model because that is where most poverty is located that call for professional assistance. In urban centers, the answer is to typically provide public services including after and before school care, housing assistance, etc.

You see the most economic inequality in large urban centers because it attracts highly educated professionals (because that is where the good jobs are) as well as the lowest incomes because social services are provided and attract the poor.

Alternatively, they teach rural poverty such as you see in Appalachia where you see generational poverty resulting from living in areas where the infrastructure is poor, education is difficult to come by/not valued and there is a certain level of isolation from other areas. That's a whole different world than the urban jungle, notwithstanding they share some of the same problems.

IMO, these traditional poverty studies are well and good for the populations they address but seems to me, they often skew a mindset to "see" what they expect to see based on their education. And you can get the same sort of education back east and at OU. Someone from NYC might be justifiably upset about income inequality because they see it everyday. That their solution to the problem only increases the likelihood of it expanding is one of those loops that is hard to get out of. Maybe impossible, short of a collapse or near collapse. The day NYC isn't filled with very rich and very poor won't be when there are no longer any very poor or they are subsidized into the lower middle class - it will be when the very rich relocate. It is already extremely difficult for middle class families to make a living there.

Moreover, unlike many places in flyover country, there has been a move away from charitable support in favor of government subsidies - and that has trickled down to the population. Accordingly, someone who studies urban poverty often builds a mindset that private giving, much less faith based giving, is too unreliable to be worthwhile. And yet, in a different community/culture, that sort of thing is commonplace, targeted and the individuals involved are dedicated. This is an area where you see a lot of private support in medical assistance, for example. Someone who studies poverty too often, IMO, thinks the whole country is like Queens. It isn't.

It is difficult to get too upset about income inequality in much of the midwest because we're in a different situation than big urban areas or Appalachia. We make far less money but housing and expenses are much cheaper and a look at a bell curve would give us a big fat middle compared to a lot of bigger cities. That isn't to say that poverty doesn't exist, but when the brilliant egg heads insist (or at least imply) that we are all living in shacks and going hungry due to horrible poverty based on our income levels without taking into account that this isn't NYC, LA or the south side of Chicago, you have to wonder what planet they are living on. We have our own types of poverty issues but people poor in OKC aren't necessarily poor for the same reasons they are poor in a big city - and accordingly, the solutions aren't necessarily the same.

Here's a for instance. It is one thing to not have a job because there are no jobs. It is another thing to not have a job even though there are jobs to be had. At that point, you have to ask the question of why this individual isn't working - is it because of lack of training or education? Disability? Drug abuse? A criminal record? Government subsidies make working a waste of effort? Laziness? Independent wealth? Rearing children or caring for sick/elderly relatives? A student? They can't speak English? Depending on the demographics, you are liable to get more or less of the above categories. Our government, unfortunately, has a one sized fits all mentality with a citizenry that wants to help and worries that targeting assistance will end up having it be too narrow to cover all the needs. Sometimes, a policy causes more ultimate harm than good but I don't expect to see any real constructive reforms until we run out of money.

As someone who spent much of her career trying to find public and private funds to assist families with special needs, it is frustrating to see huge sums of money going to people it isn't really helping while families that really need the help go without. People tend to think there is plenty of assistance available without realizing that most of it is put into little funding pies depending on the community. Once a given pie is exhausted, too bad, so sad. Come ask us next year. We spend so much money on deadbeats that waste it and every dime of that could be going to help a child that is really needy. I guess what I am really saying is that if you want money to support a poor family, ask the government. They'll give you housing, food stamps, blah, blah. Chances are, they aren't going to get off the public dole anytime soon. Even families with skills and education typically wait until the funding runs out.

Alternatively, if you have a family with special needs - a kid out of control, drug abuse or mental illness, a child who needs counseling following abuse, etc., funding is sometimes available but you have to prove it is needed and there is great competition for these resources. Once it is gone for the fiscal year, look for other funding sources and good luck. Thank god for private giving.

[PennyQuilts]

Much is made of income inequality and I don't mean to come across as dismissing it. That being said, I personally believe the stats being used are less than helpful in terms of addressing what is really happening and more about fueling an ideology or social theory. Comparing today vs. the '70's is comparing apples and oranges. Until and unless comparisons take into account actual household income, I think the stats commonly used are misleading and leave you only guessing: 1) what the actual state of inequality is, today; and perhaps more importantly, 2) how relevant it is to most of us. Most of us are living much better than we were in the 70's if you use a scale of material possessions. Unfortunately, most of us have a lot more personal debt than we did in the 70's. And there is no doubt that student loan debt is a monster for our young and needs to be addressed/reformed. The student debt, however, is primarily a problem for young people going to college and often the burden of the privileged - the actual poor typically think that is a rich guy's problem and they may be on to something.

Cultural norms have dramatically changed, especially in discrete demographics to the point where couples are not marrying even if living together and having children. A very wealthy man with a live in stay at home girlfriend may well be in the one percent but his companion would be counted as poverty stricken with a legal entitlement to food stamps and housing assistance. Yes, she would. The only thing keeping her from claiming them would be a cultural bias against it and that bias is rapidly eroding. So when you compare income from the 70's to today's income, you are often comparing TWO incomes back in the 70's (or one person making a good living) whereas, today, you might have a "single mom" with little or no income even if she has a hard working, well paid live in boyfriend who is her child's parent (or vice versa - the dad could be staying home). Overwhelmingly, even if they are living together as a couple, the young and the poor aren't marrying at the same rates as the middle class and that has made their counted income take a nose dive, making them look poorer than they might be. Additionally, if a young mother, for example, is drawing public assistance, it often makes no sense for her to give that up to go to work. The end result is that should her relationship fail with her boyfriend, she's left in a bad way - trapped in poverty without even the right to alimony or assistance in getting training or education. You want fries with that? Moreover, the overall household income is less as a result.

IMO, the stats that are relevant in determining income inequality would be a comparison of individuals to individuals, or married to married. I don't know a good way, factually or practically, to account for household income because so many people live in shared homes (especially new immigrants) or informal romantic relationships.

[soonerguru]

I'm working on writing that textbook now.

@SoonerGuru
Here are a few ideas, many of which have been or are already being pursued in OKC with varying degrees of passion.

This list was composed by a group of writers for Global Urban Development Magazine and inspired by the work of Amartya Sen, a Harvard professor of economics and philosophy. These "local authority actions" are inclusive of cities across the globe.

Instituting participatory urban processes that give a voice in decision-making to poor and marginalized populations.

Partnering with communities, community-based organizations and non-governmental organizations including advocacy groups, on community-based initiatives.

Providing access to infrastructure, and urban services.

Initiating integrated programs for the improvement of the urban environment.

Supporting the development of small businesses and micro-enterprises.

Fostering citizenship and social inclusion.

Collaborating with foundations and philanthropic organizations on social projects.

Alleviating the hardships endured by poor and marginalized populations.

Initiating special programs to reach vulnerable groups.

Thank you for your reply. These seem like worthy goals. I don't have the time to research, but I'm sure OKC already does many of these things. It would be helpful if we could model successful programs from other cities: programs that have a track record of success. It would also be great to get pretty granular and choose one or two things we can focus on -- using this successful empirical data -- and put our stamp on it, tweaking as necessary.

Some of these proposals are quite vague, and people may disagree what they mean.

I'm not an expert at all, but the poverty continuum in OKC ranges from working folks who can't get ahead -- or even catch up, to folks who are desperate and on the streets. We have a large population of people suffering from mental illness, homelessness, and substance addiction. These folks need immediate help.

The larger issues seemingly transcend what a municipal government can do alone. We need better help from the state (not gonna happen with the current leadership), and the Feds.

[LandRunOkie]

There are some books that are so powerful that the fact that you never heard of them before might make you believe in conspiracies once you've read them. Captains of Consciousness is one such astonishingly well kept secret. It is such a popular (or powerful) book that not a single copy can be found in the Metropolitan Library System. Their copies must have walked off. Fortunately its available for purchase fairly cheap. It would be required reading for all my students if I taught any humanities course in the OKC public school system. It describes the way foreign and domestic populations were tricked into taking on debt so that consumption and "the economy" would continue to grow. The fact that I had to find this book on my own heightened my sense that public schools are more geared toward producing "factory workers" than educated, financially responsible adults. If poverty is a state of mind, Captains of Consciousness explains why.

[PennyQuilts]

Let me just point out that plenty of people simply aren't suited to do any higher level work, be it by IQ, some disability or temperament. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with factory workers as implied by the way you contrasted them with "educated, financially responsible adults." Who do you think is going to do the "grunt work" in society? Absent someone to pick up the trash, stock shelves, clean bedpans, etc. society would break down. Honest work, however humble, should be appreciated, not sneered at.

[LandRunOkie]

Of course society needs people to clean bedpans. And if those people teach their children to apply themselves to their studies in public school, that child should have a strong chance at being better off. Unfortunately that is becoming less and less true. If you are suggesting public education doesn't need major overhaul, you're part of the problem. Economic history is the most revealing of all forms of history and is the one conspicuously absent from public education. If debt was demonized as much as evolution in the schools poverty would be a mere curiosity rather than a pandemic.

[PennyQuilts]

Of course society needs people to clean bedpans. And if those people teach their children to apply themselves to their studies in public school, that child should have a strong chance at being better off. Unfortunately that is becoming less and less true. If you are suggesting public education doesn't need major overhaul, you're part of the problem. Economic history is the most revealing of all forms of history and is the one conspicuously absent from public education. If debt was demonized as much as evolution in the schools poverty would be a mere curiosity rather than a pandemic.

I am not sure where you got that I said anything about school reform. All I addressed was individual aptitudes and abilities and took issue with elevating one "career" track over another. Personally, I completely agree that kids are not being taught anything about basic economics and they should. And I am not just talking about personal finance or even high finance - I mean they should understand how the economy actually works. Most adults I know don't have a clue of cause and effect or how governmental policy impacts the way business (and everything else) is conducted. They don't seem to even consider cause and effect or what is likely to happen if this or that is adjusted or changed. To me, good government policy has to be wed with sound economic reality. Not to derail this, but take Obamacare - it is as if the morons that wrote that law (and regulations) are living on another planet with no earthly idea of how that law would play out in the real world, practically and in terms of the economy. It is one huge unintended consequence, most of which was easily predictable when economics (and human nature) was factored into it.

[PennyQuilts]

If debt was demonized as much as evolution in the schools poverty would be a mere curiosity rather than a pandemic.

We will always have poverty but I agree, we'd be much, much, much better off, individually and as a nation. Yes, sometimes you need to go into debt but the way we handle it is idiotic. People don't understand the difference between going into debt as a genuine investment vs. just borrowing to get something rather than saving up for it.

[soonerguru]

I think this is a great discussion, and I hope to keep it as devoid of politics as possible. Let's also avoid demonizing poor people -- it is ridiculous to say people "choose" to be poor. This is something someone says to themselves to feel better about having greater fortune.

Those of us who are successful, and educated, and have careers that are fulfilling and challenging, should feel blessed. Yes, we work hard for our success, but we are also lucky to be in the position we are, and probably benefited from many people helping us along the way.

There's no way to address the problem of poverty by casting blame on the poor.

Let's move this toward discussion of ideas that can actually positively impact this problem.

Great comments from Penny, by the way, about employment. No one should ever look down at anyone for what they do to contribute to society. What is forgotten -- or unknown -- is that most poor people have jobs. The population of working poor in this country is enormous. It is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate to characterize the poor as welfare recipients.

[LandRunOkie]

I missed the part where the poor were blamed or characterized as welfare recipients. This may not be surprising since I skip any post longer than my pinky finger (here's looking at you PQ!). My point, which can be examined by looking at the book I recommended, is that traditional values have been beaten out of people's heads by mass media. If we want to eradicate poverty, the public schools have to play a primary role. Thrift and savings are simply not values that are passed down from generation to generation anymore. Propaganda, even corporate propaganda, rather than government-sponsored, is powerful. Imagine if the USA declared a Cold War on debt rather than the Soviets.

[PennyQuilts]

I think this is a great discussion, and I hope to keep it as devoid of politics as possible. Let's also avoid demonizing poor people -- it is ridiculous to say people "choose" to be poor. This is something someone says to themselves to feel better about having greater fortune.

Those of us who are successful, and educated, and have careers that are fulfilling and challenging, should feel blessed. Yes, we work hard for our success, but we are also lucky to be in the position we are, and probably benefited from many people helping us along the way.

There's no way to address the problem of poverty by casting blame on the poor.

Let's move this toward discussion of ideas that can actually positively impact this problem.

Great comments from Penny, by the way, about employment. No one should ever look down at anyone for what they do to contribute to society. What is forgotten -- or unknown -- is that most poor people have jobs. The population of working poor in this country is enormous. It is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate to characterize the poor as welfare recipients.

Thank you for the good comment statement but I didn't see anyone demonizing the poor, either and you seem to be going off on something not part of this conversation. If you are saying none choose to be poor, that's simply the flip side of demonization and it is also untrue. Some do choose that path and they have that right. Pretending it doesn't happen because YOU find it too shameful to acknowledge is your prerogative but I wish you wouldn't try to control others' speech or ask them to also ignore reality.

Demanding that this truth be not spoken is one of the reasons hard topics are increasingly difficult to address. It reminds me of the days when rape and incest were dirty little secrets that people couldn't talk about. There are many reasons people are poor including choice. The mere mention of that is not demonization and I hope you weren't trying to equate the two. There is a fundamental difference in terms of addressing the issue between someone poor by choice vs a multitude of other paths. If we can't look at this issue with open eyes due to some ideological filter, we might as well give up. Please don't try to claim an honest discussion amounts to demonization simply because you are projecting your own intolerance on others. If you can't tolerate including choice among the many reasons people may be poor, all you will do is shut down a constructive conversation. We don't need to be preached to, thank you very much. That attitude is one of the primary reasons we can't get it together, policy wise, to help people in need. We were having a pretty good conversation until you brought your bias into it and got preachy.