Some people don't understand poverty at all. They think you need to be living in a box underneath an overpass to be "poor." They've not read nor would they believe the research that shows just being in the bottom quintile income earners relates to poorer health, education, and other well-being outcomes. We're talking people who make up to $27,000 here. They don't look at these negative outcomes and see how they relate to poverty. They also don't see how poverty relates to their children's outcomes with poorer academic performance and greater risk of behavioural issues, as well as the other issues I mentioned for their parents. I guess the idea is if they're not living in a box under an overpass, they're not poor and government services are unnecessary.
Agreed. It's a very short-sighted view of poverty. If they can afford a TV, then they aren't poor has to be one of the dumbest arguments for cutting services to poor people that I've ever heard.
... the government is at least somewhat willing to provide them.
This I disagree with.
My friend gets $1000 per month (same $$ as welfare).
She is supposed to provide her own housing
Provide her own food
Fight tooth and nail with the government to provide her the necessary medical treatments, which often go uncovered, or take months to get.
And then use all the leftover money for her heating bill, electricity, TV, phone, etc.
She has friends who buy her groceries, and other things, otherwise she would be scrounging the expired crap from the food bank. The government doesn't provide her with a level of income even close to what she actually needs. And they rely on voters not to notice, or not caring enough, to make it an issue. (or those like Blueblood who think the situation with my friend is just fine... in fact, she should get less because she has a TV!)