Does real poverty still exist in the U.S.?
 

The purported goal of collectivists—socialists, Marxist, communists and various fringe groups, is to reduce or eliminate the gap between the rich and poor. They advocate redistribution of wealth, which is to take money from those who earned it and give to those who have earned little or nothing. Up until the inauguration of our present administration, there was no chance of the collectivists of realizing any more of their goal than giveaways such as food stamps and various forms of welfare. From my point of view, real poverty no longer exists in the United States. Certainly there is a low economic class, but not the kind of poverty that causes starvation.

I’ve worked in places where real poverty is common. Even in isolated parts of Indonesian Sumatra and Borneo, people have almost nothing, but manage to get enough to eat through their own efforts such as fishing, gardening and raising chickens and farm animals such as goats and pigs. These people have no electricity or running water, no telephones or cars. There are no welfare checks or food stamps. I’ve seen similar varieties of true poverty in rural eastern Turkey, Peru and in China. When I read of what the American government classifies as poverty, I have to laugh. 

There are a number of poverty studies, based on census data. In 2005 the Census Bureau’s annual report on poverty in the United States claimed there were 37 million persons living in poverty. 

An outfit called “Change.org” had this to say: Childhood poverty in rural America is a chronic problem; one that activists, advocates and policymakers are still trying to understand.  It appears to be a perennial lack of educational and job opportunities, particularly for rural African-Americans, who have lived for generations with resources bypassing their communities and no particular means to get out.”  A map included in the article showed the areas of the country where childhood poverty was supposed to be a big problem. It included this county, which I naturally didn’t believe.  A look into Change.org revealed they were out to change a “daunting array of social and environmental problems ranging from health care and education to global warming and economic inequality.” An advocacy group with an social engineering agenda is hardly the place to look for unbiased data, so I discounted everything they had to say.

A report issued by The Heritage Foundation last month used Census Bureau data and had this to say about poverty. “The average person identified as "poor" by the government has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. According to the government's own surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrig­erator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. 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 affluent, it is far from the images of dire poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.” So the poor aren’t as bad off as they are being depicted by the agents of “change” that are currently directing the country toward some form of socialism—or worse.

The collectivist way of narrowing or eliminating the gap between the rich and poor is to take from the rich and give to the poor; thus bringing everyone down to the same level of misery.  Capitalism, on the other hand, proves the adage that a rising tide raises all boats. Therefore, while the gap between the rich and poor remains wide; these families would be considered to have high living standards compared to most other people in the world.