Neocon logic: Are US kids poor because they have only 2 TVs?

[edbermac]

Excuse me while I head for the company first aid kit to get a few aspirin...:banghead:

On the November 9 broadcast of the nationally syndicated radio show Janet Parshall's America, conservative and religious activist David Barton, founder and president of WallBuilders, a "national pro-family organization" that, according to its website, "seeks ... to rebuild that which makes America strong -- its constitutional, moral, and religious foundations," questioned the statistic that "one out of five American kids live in poverty," asking, "Is that because they only have two TVs instead of three?" Barton further challenged the impact of child poverty, asking host Janet Parshall, "When's the last time an American kid died of malnutrition?"

According to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, of the approximately 70 million children in the United States, roughly 27 million live in low-income families. In 2004, 17.6 percent of households with children under 18 reported food insecurity, which the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture defines as "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways."

From the November 9 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Janet Parshall's America:

PARSHALL: David, I'm going to ask this question. I know I'm going to come up against a break, and I'll ask you to finish on the other side. But I want our friends to start being quickened to the phrase "social justice." You and I know what that is. Give a working definition to our friends.

BARTON: Yes. Social justice is the new mantra, if you will, for religious left, the religious left agenda. And so what they're calling social justice is health care, what they're calling social justice is ending poverty. And by the way, I was really intrigued with what Hart said on poverty -- 1 out of 5 American kids lives in poverty. Is that because they only have two TVs instead of three?

And I don't mean to down that, but when's the last time an American kid died of malnutrition? Our definition of poverty, we keep redefining -- he was right, whoever controls the words controls the debate -- we need to raise that lifestyle, but for them to make that a social issue that overcomes the issues of abortion, marriage, et cetera, their social justice message that they're trying to put out there is the agenda for the religious left, who does not want to look at fundamental values. They want to look at extrapolated values.

PARSHALL: Mmm-hmm. Excellent point.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511140011

[DBoon]

1. David Barton should try living on a poverty income

then report back to us how easy it was and how he enjoyed his life.

[SoCalDem]

2. Poor is relative

If you were poor in times past, you went to school with other poor folks, you played in the streets with them., went to church with them, dressed like them, worked with them..

You were united by your financial circumstance..

Your family may not have even HAD a tv, and the people portrayed ON tv were likely to have been "ordinary" folks...and you might have identified with them. the most popular shows were variety and westerns..(not much to make you feel poor)

Something changed..

Dynasty, Dallas,and others started showing how "the other class" lived, and illustrated just what a loser you were is you did not live that way


credit cards boomed during the same time, and pretty soon, people started spending like they were rich..

There was a time when NO ONE but the very rich got credit, except for a house or car..and before you got a loan (from a bank) you were scrutinized up and down the line..

credit cards are a very private kind of debt..only YOU and the CC company know how "privileged you are, and what your limit it)

You can have lots of stuff now, and be poor..


Poor people "back then" did not really feel as poor as middle class people do today, because they have stuff like all their friends & neighbors

[EC]

3. typical argument

So, TV's are realitively cheap, or many are rented or second hand. When these people can't afford any other entertainment, TV is it. (or are they expected to just EXIST?)

My boss tried the one where the English poor have smaller apartments, I just said, Dah, it's an ISLAND, most places were small there.

[xchrom]

oh yes you have two tv's so you're not poor.

the problem with your life is that you're not married and going to church.

ok -- that fuckwad logic just made my head hurt.

wouldn't be the lack of jobs in the neighborhood -- or something like that?

[SheilaT]

4. Sigh. There's so little logic on

Barton's part. First of all, just because you don't die of malnutrition doesn't mean you're not poor.

Secondly, TVs have nothing to do with being poor. We're reasonably well off, and only have one TV in our household. Of course, my kids thought they were horribly deprived because they were almost the only kids they know without a TV in their bedroom, but we're definitely not poor.

The problem is, someone like Barton is pontificating from ignorance. He's obviously never been close to poor.