Wealthiest Americans say the poor have it easy
Source: CNN
January 9, 2015: 2:33 PM ET
A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of those with the greatest financial security believe that "poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return."
Only 36% of the wealthiest say "poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently."
Those struggling the most financially believe that the poor need more help by more than a two-to-one margin.
The two groups also hold opposite views about the role of government. More than 60% of the well-to-do say that government can't afford to do more for the needy, while 60% of those struggling say the government should do more -- even if that means taking on more debt.
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/news/economy/wealthy-view-of-poor/index.html?iid=TL_Popular
= new reply since forum marked as read
you've got the 'soft' corruption, one might say, of having the means to buy the best
representation available. 
"I'm sure they would trade places with rich people in a minute, now would they be willing to do what it takes to get there, can't say, I sure some would, some would not"
I'm sorry, OnePercentDem, you may be a 'self-made man' to the extent such a thing
exists, but those who inherit wealth like that of The Romneys, the Bush's and the Koch
brothers, did NOTHING for their fortunes..They were merely winners of the "lucky sperm
club".
it's important to note that I do not hate or resent members of that "club"
Some, like FDR and JFK, made wonderful Democratic Presidents and some
like many members of The Society for Responsible Wealth and others are fair and
conscientious and do good things as well.
They do appear, unfortunately, to be in the minority. 
CELL PHONES!!1!!11! 
Either way I DOUBT he was a great guy before assuming our citizenship.
categories, and don't seem to be broken out in the report that uses the word "rich", other than that people who are financially secure are more consistent in their ideology. The other report only uses the term "financially secure", groups who have or don't the things that make getting through the day less painful.
That's a different and useful way to look at the set I think. You can predict their behavior a bit better to look for donations, or craft solutions to help provide real opportunity for others to make their and our lives bet...but I digress.
But yeah - once you get the medical, retirement, housing, educational, and "retirement" (we should retire that word) needs of folks taken care of, it doesn't take that much money to be secure.
Seems like a platform some political party could do well with. You look at the longer report and among the most financially secure the difference in that survey is 36% liberal and 40% conservative, with 25% to work on.
Firs, the Federal law restricts ANY attachment of wages (Except Child Support) to no more then 25% of your total Income. In your case this is the MINOR rule for it restricts any attachment to $200 a month on income of $800 a month.
The Second FEDERAL rule on wage attachment is you MUST be left with 30 times the Federal minimum wage on a weekly bases. Federal Minimum Wage is $7.15 a hour. $214.50 a week or $858.00 a month. Now the $858 per month can be reduced by any taxes due, including Income Taxes, Social Security Tax, wage tax, AND Union Dues AND Child Support payments (Through MOST states exempt anyone earning less then $800 a month from Child Support, thus rarely imposed on people earning less then $800 a month if that is all you can earn). Student loans are NOT among the list or exceptions thus any wage attachment must leave you at least $858 a month, less taxes and union dues. Furthermore Child Support Payments are superior claims to any other debt in many states.
If your income is less then $858 a month, tell the creditor to go pound salt, tell them your income is less then what is attachable by FEDERAL LAW.
One way to look at who is poor is to look at the US Poverty level for one person which is $11,650 a year or $970.33 a month.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/
Another gauge is the "Standard of Need" which is what Congress determined a person needs to receive to survive. This was calculated in 1967 and Inflation indexed. In 2015 it is $733, which is what the Federal Government pays Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to those people who can NOT work do to disabilities.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html
Remember the $733 is what a person can get on SSI. Since 1967 the Federal Government has said it will pay 50% of whatever a state pays its welfare recipients up to that Standard of Need. While all State's Welfare payments are subject to that 50% copayment by the Federal Government, but NO State has even taken those payments up to the Standard of Need Maximum. In my home County the Welfare payment is $174 a month (the Federal Government pays $87.50 of that).
A third way to look at "poverty" is US Housing law, and its definitions of "Low Income", "Low Low Income" now call "Very Low"
and "Low, Low Low, Income" (Extremely low Income). These terms came out of the reform of Federal Public Housing in 1974. Prior to 1974 it was IMPOSSIBLE for a person on Welfare to get into most Public Housing in the US. Public Housing Agencies demand that people had a steady income and employment, thus cutting out people on Welfare. To counter this Congress invented the Terms "Low Low Income" and "Low, Low, Low income" and required Public Housing Agencies to prioritize these lower income people.
Here is a National Data Base on what is now called "Very Low" and "Extremely Low" income:
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il14/index_il2014.html
For Example in Bangor Maine 80% of Low Income is $35,150, VERY LOW is $21,950 and Extremely Low ia $13,200.
Just pointing out there is not just one way to look at poverty.
That is where I am -- total income per month is about $1100.00. This makes you not eligible for any assistance much beyond power assistance (which I would get regardless of income due to a medical health condition that is not going to go away) and low income phone which I may soon lose.
Great fun living life just above poverty level. Oh yeah. 
And for the rich that hate the poor/disabled, well they need to find something else to do with their evil thoughts IMO.
I can't imagine what you're going through, but you definitely have my utmost respect and empathy jwirr. It's Always good to read you.
My dad was a unionized blue collar worker and my mom stayed home with us kids.
We lived in a very safe and pleasant blue collar suburb. The area wasn't
"plush", of course, but it was a nice place to grow up, with lots of lawns
and trees and friendly neighbors. We had one car and didn't need another
as you could walk to most things -- movie theaters, parks and shops of all kinds..
As a family, we took a yearly vacation and were honestly quite comfortable,
wanting for little or nothing.
NOW, the unions are decimated and the vast majority of those jobs are gone,
off-shored to non-union, low wage countries.
The manufacturing that has stayed (or returned) are paying NOTHING like the good
wages that supported my one-income family from the 50's through the early 80's, hence
the rapid elimination of the middle class.
I recently read that the US now has the SMALLEST middle class in the
Industrialized World, whereas in the Sixties we had the biggest, as well as the largest
number of college graduates.
The people of this country have been terribly screwed. 
Love the mother-in-law story! 
As for the robots, that's unfortunate...Didn't the union demand that
workers laid off from that particular job be placed in ANOTHER job?
My dad started at Jack Frost Sugar in Philadelphia (Quaker Sugar at the time) in
the early'50's as a printing press operator. He, too, was "automated" out of
his position, but the union insisted he and the other printers be given another job, or
jobs, if the replacement' didn't work out. He wound up working there for 30 years before
retiring at 62.
give up the job and investments and trust funds, cancel their health insurance, give up their living situations, etc. and apply for "bennies" as the GOP calls it. If its so easy, then more of the wealthy should stop "working so hard" 
and live the "easy life"!
Personally, I think there's plenty out there that could be gotten through simplifying the deductions and loopholes in the tax code to make it simpler. And some sort of dispensation for allowing firms and individuals to bring their foreign money over somehow with a reasonable tax policy, although I don't know what that would be.
And our bloated defense budget has been cut since Bush times but is still more than we need in modern times. The F-35 join strike fighter is a prime example of something that can be cut without affecting our national security.
We could stand to reform a lot of subsidies for big business in sectors like agriculture and energy.
Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)
without doing anything in return."
-Yeah right - I guess as a minimum they should offer themselves as prostitutes or slave laborers - right.
-Airplane
(edit to add sarcasm - Just in case)
Perhaps I could suggest to them some non fantasy and non fiction reading to do...
