Housing Secretary Ben Carson Says Poverty Is A 'State Of Mind'

[GMDino]

Before I share the story and all the reasons he is wrong let me agree with the premise of it being a "state of mind."

Studies have shown that if you are used to living check to check and being "poor" no matter how much money you earn you live the same kind of lifestyle.

Sadly what the good doctor says, to reinforce what the administration is selling, is that people like being poor and living off those sweet, sweet government checks and food stamps that they simply don't want to get off of them.

As the article will point out many people receiving government aid ARE working already.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/25/530068988/ben-carson-says-poverty-is-a-state-of-mind

Quote:When it comes to poor Americans, the Trump administration has a message: Government aid is holding many of them back. Without it, many more of them would be working.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney said as much when presenting the administration's budget plan this week to cut safety net programs by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. The administration also wants to tighten work requirements for those getting aid, such as food stamps, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
"If you're on food stamps, and you're able-bodied, we need you to go to work. If you're on disability insurance and you're not supposed to be — if you're not truly disabled, we need you to go back to work," he said.
On Wednesday night, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson — whose budget to help low-income households would be cut by more than $6 billion next year — added his own thoughts. He said in a radio interview that "poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind."


U.S.
Trump Budget Deals 'Devastating Blow' To Low-Income Americans, Advocates Say
Carson — who himself grew up in poverty to become a widely acclaimed neurosurgeon — said people with the "right mind set" can have everything taken away from them, and they'll pull themselves up. He believes the converse is true as well. "You take somebody with the wrong mind-set, you can give them everything in the world (and) they'll work their way right back down to the bottom," Carson said.

Anti-poverty advocates say both Carson and Mulvaney are fundamentally wrong, that most low-income people would work if they could. And many of them already do. They just don't make enough to live on.

"All Americans, but particularly one of the top federal anti-poverty officials, should understand that the main causes of U.S. poverty are economic, not mental," said Joel Berg,
CEO of Hunger Free America. "Overwhelming facts and data prove that the main causes of poverty are low wages, too few jobs, and an inadequate safety net – not some sort of personal attitude problem."

He and other advocates say the image of millions of able-bodied people sitting around collecting checks doesn't match reality. About two-thirds of the 42 million people who get SNAP benefits are elderly, disabled or children. A majority of SNAP families with kids have at least one person who's working, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Olivia Golden, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), says one of the biggest obstacles to getting people off government aid is the lack of decent-paying jobs.

"Two-thirds of poor children live with an adult who's working," she says. "So working is no guarantee of being above poverty."

Golden says Carson's suggestion that poor people are lazy or somehow at fault is "an idea that through American history has been an excuse for really bad policy decisions." She cited lack of investments in education, and says the comments are especially egregious given the president's budget proposal. It calls for steep cuts in education, health care, job training and other supports for low-income Americans.

Golden argues that, rather than discourage work, government support — such a food aid and health care — can encourage people to seek and keep jobs by helping them to stabilize their lives. She says it's easier to work if you aren't worried about being hungry or sick.

Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute also thinks Carson is wrong about poverty being a state of mind. "Poverty is being poor," says Tanner.

But he agrees that government benefits can sometimes be a disincentive to working, because people make an economic decision about whether they'll be better off if they take a job. By the time they calculate the loss of benefits, taxes they'll have to pay and the cost of employment — such as child care and transportation — it's often not worth it.

He also thinks that some people stuck in poverty do make bad choices — such as dropping out of school or getting pregnant — that worsen their economic outlook.

But Tanner says many poor Americans have to deal with conditions that are not of their making and prevent them from getting ahead. He thinks the answer isn't cutting government aid, but dealing with the barriers to work, including a lack of education and a criminal justice system that leaves many — especially African-American men — with criminal records that prevent them from getting hired.

Joel Berg thinks raising the minimum wage would also help, as would making housing more affordable for low-income families. The Trump budget would cut some of these programs, overseen by HUD Secretary Carson.

In presenting the budget, OMB Director Mulvaney did offer this assurance for those people who are getting government aid. "We are going to do everything we can to help you find a job that you are suited to and a job that you can use to help take care of you, yourself, and your family," he said.

He didn't provide details other than to add, "If you're in this country and you want to work, there's good news, because Donald Trump is President and we're going to get 3 percent growth, and we're going to give you the opportunity to go back to work."

Mulvaney also promised that the administration would not kick "anybody off of any program who really needs it ... we have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need it."

Defining just who does and doesn't "need it" will likely be a big part of the debate as Congress considers what to do with the president's plans.

[BmorePat87]

Yea, I don't take issue with the "gotcha" quote. It's the follow through with rhetoric and policy that I'll scrutinize.

Growing up in poverty takes a mental toll. You may not know what things are in place to help you get out or you may not value some of the things (like education) because of everyone around you. It may be the others in poverty decrying the system or those not in poverty talking down about it.

Still, I'd like to help those in poverty be able to survive and provide for their kids. It sucks when you hear about the one lady with 6 kids, but it also sucks when you hear about the lady with 3 trying to get through college.

[*bfine32*]

I think everybody can agree that we need to help those who need it; however, who determines who needs it and how much do they need?

If anyone thinks there aren't folks out there giving 100% and still struggling then they are idiots. likewise, if anyone thinks there aren't folks out there capable of supporting themselves that would rather let the government do it; they too, are idiots.

I disagree with Ben's assertion that poverty is a state of mind as it is not. Now being miserable, thinking the government owes you more, and/or choosing to let the government support you and your family when you are fully capable, now that's a state of mind.

I've seen opponents call this budget the "immoral budget"; but it is designed to reduce spending. What is moral about continually going deeper in debt and leaving future generations with the bill?

[GMDino]

(05-26-2017, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think everybody can agree that we need to help those who need it; however, who determines who needs it and how much do they need?

(05-26-2017, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If anyone thinks there aren't folks out there giving 100% and still struggling then they are idiots. likewise, if anyone thinks there aren't folks out there capable of supporting themselves that would rather let the government do it; they too, are idiots.

We agree on this.

(05-26-2017, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I disagree with Ben's assertion that poverty is a state of mind as it is not. Now being miserable, thinking the government owes you more, and/or choosing to let the government support you and your family when you are fully capable, now that's a state of mind.

So is thinking the government is out to get you or that the government is helping people who "don't deserve it".

(05-26-2017, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've seen opponents call this budget the "immoral budget"; but it is designed to reduce spending. What is moral about continually going deeper in debt and leaving future generations with the bill?

What is moral about reducing spending on the back of the poorest people and safety net/social programs and increasing spending on things like defense?

[Benton]

(05-26-2017, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think everybody can agree that we need to help those who need it; however, who determines who needs it and how much do they need?

If anyone thinks there aren't folks out there giving 100% and still struggling then they are idiots. likewise, if anyone thinks there aren't folks out there capable of supporting themselves that would rather let the government do it; they too, are idiots.

I disagree with Ben's assertion that poverty is a state of mind as it is not. Now being miserable, thinking the government owes you more, and/or choosing to let the government support you and your family when you are fully capable, now that's a state of mind.

I've seen opponents call this budget the "immoral budget"; but it is designed to reduce spending. What is moral about continually going deeper in debt and leaving future generations with the bill?

A lot of excellent points, and I think most people agree with a lot of what you're saying.

To the bold, the issue is more on what it's being spent on, and what it's not.

From the last numbers I received, we're increasing Homeland Security by 7% (it was already one of the bigger chunks of federal spending), DoD by 10% (the biggest chunk at $575 billion total) and 5% in VA (which I don't think anyone would argue isn't needed).

Among the cuts are several agencies (Delta Regional, Appalachian Regional Commission, USTDA) which help facilitate thousands of jobs, entrepreneurial efforts and job training. Many of those (DRA, ARC) are in the poorest, rural areas of the country. Cutting transportation funding is also going to shrink paving projects, bridge replacements, lock upgrades, etc.

So the budget spends more money on padding pockets of a few international investors by increasing military spending, but is going to cut out jobs and safety nets in place for those displaced.

I've shouted for reduced spending for 10+ years, but cutting out jobs and giving more money to a handful of defense contractors is the wrong way to do it.

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 04:53 PM)Benton Wrote: A lot of excellent points, and I think most people agree with a lot of what you're saying.

To the bold, the issue is more on what it's being spent on, and what it's not.

From the last numbers I received, we're increasing Homeland Security by 7% (it was already one of the bigger chunks of federal spending), DoD by 10% (the biggest chunk at $575 billion total) and 5% in VA (which I don't think anyone would argue isn't needed).

Among the cuts are several agencies (Delta Regional, Appalachian Regional Commission, USTDA) which help facilitate thousands of jobs, entrepreneurial efforts and job training. Many of those (DRA, ARC) are in the poorest, rural areas of the country. Cutting transportation funding is also going to shrink paving projects, bridge replacements, lock upgrades, etc.

So the budget spends more money on padding pockets of a few international investors by increasing military spending, but is going to cut out jobs and safety nets in place for those displaced.

I've shouted for reduced spending for 10+ years, but cutting out jobs and giving more money to a handful of defense contractors is the wrong way to do it.

Exactly. A lot of people recognize a need to reduce spending. But when we reduce spending we shouldn't be leaving our citizens hanging out to dry. The defense budget is half of our discretionary budget, and with the proposed budget it would probably become about 2/3rds. This budget isn't going to go anywhere, because a president's budget is less about what will happen fiscally and more about what the policy priorities are for the administration. This budget is not "America first" because it is going to result in reduced services to those that need them most in our country to line the pockets of the military industrial complex.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2017, 08:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Exactly. A lot of people recognize a need to reduce spending. But when we reduce spending we shouldn't be leaving our citizens hanging out to dry. The defense budget is half of our discretionary budget, and with the proposed budget it would probably become about 2/3rds. This budget isn't going to go anywhere, because a president's budget is less about what will happen fiscally and more about what the policy priorities are for the administration. This budget is not "America first" because it is going to result in reduced services to those that need them most in our country to line the pockets of the military industrial complex.

Perhaps the new budget will reduce the folks that are receiving subsides that "need them the most". I've read Economic Growth under Obama was the worst of any President since WWII and only Herbert Hoover was worse since the Great Depression.

Maybe this budget looks to be proactive instead of reactive. "Pockets of big business" is just something folks say that failed to look at an economic model.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps the new budget will reduce the folks that are receiving subsides that "need them the most". I've read Economic Growth under Obama was the worst of any President since WWII and only Herbert Hoover was worse since the Great Depression.

Maybe this budget looks to be proactive instead of reactive. "Pockets of big business" is just something folks say that failed to look at an economic model.  

Actually, I specified the military industrial complex for a reason, not overall big business. The reason for that is because the defense budget is where he has decided to not be fiscally responsible.

As for economic growth, I'm not here to defend Obama on his economic policies. Honestly, the neoliberal direction of the Clinton and Obama administrations was closer to GOP attitudes than what I favor (I'm more of New Deal kind of guy). I honestly haven't seen much reason to expect higher economic growth from Trump policies, and from what I have seen, neither has the CBO, IMF, or the Fed.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2017, 09:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, I specified the military industrial complex for a reason, not overall big business. The reason for that is because the defense budget is where he has decided to not be fiscally responsible.

As for economic growth, I'm not here to defend Obama on his economic policies. Honestly, the neoliberal direction of the Clinton and Obama administrations was closer to GOP attitudes than what I favor (I'm more of  New Deal kind of guy). I honestly haven't seen much reason to expect higher economic growth from Trump policies, and from what I have seen, neither has the CBO, IMF, or the Fed.

Of course not being fiscally responsible is just an opinion; regardless how learned the forecaster is. I do know that this increase will allow many Americans to provide for their families and/or earn a college degree. Of course these folks will have to be clothed, armed, and housed by the Military Industrial Complex.

You are not here to defend Obama's Economic Policies. Would you at least say it gave money to those that "need it the most"? 

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 10:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are not here to defend Obama's Economic Policies. Would you at least say it gave money to those that "need it the most"? 

Nope.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2017, 10:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope.

OK, I thought welfare programs flourished under him. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 10:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, I thought welfare programs flourished under him. 

He made some changes that slowed the growth of the poverty rate, and that was good. But his administration still paid more lip service to the issue than actually taking action. Is he to blame for this, or a split government? Hard to say.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2017, 10:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He made some changes that slowed the growth of the poverty rate, and that was good. But his administration still paid more lip service to the issue than actually taking action. Is he to blame for this, or a split government? Hard to say.

..and that backs up the reason I took issue with the "takes money from those who need it the most" assertion. If we just cannot judge it by dollars given to welfare programs then it seems kind of unfair to suggest the proposed takes from those that need it the most by just looking at the raw numbers. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2017, 10:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and that backs up the reason I took issue with the "takes money from those who need it the most" assertion. If we just cannot judge it by dollars given to welfare programs then it seems kind of unfair to suggest the proposed takes from those that need it the most by just looking at the raw numbers. 

That is assuming I am just referring to cuts to welfare programs.

[Benton]

(05-26-2017, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps the new budget will reduce the folks that are receiving subsides that "need them the most".  

Lockheed Martin? Raytheon?

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2017, 11:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is assuming I am just referring to cuts to welfare programs.

Seems making assumptions is contagious. 

[Vlad]

(05-26-2017, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Before I share the story and all the reasons he is wrong let me agree with the premise of it being a "state of mind."

Studies have shown that if you are used to living check to check and being "poor" no matter how much money you earn you live the same kind of lifestyle.

Sadly what the good doctor says, to reinforce what the administration is selling, is that people like being poor and living off those sweet, sweet government checks and food stamps that they simply don't want to get off of them.

As the article will point out many people receiving government aid ARE working already.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/25/530068988/ben-carson-says-poverty-is-a-state-of-mind

You should also agree with the premise that the title of the article "Ben Carson says poverty is a state of mind" is misleading.
This article was created under a pretense.

Carsons exact words were "Poverty to a large extent is ALSO a state of mind"....not the end all be all to the reason why poverty exists.

You could also argue that poverty cannot be a state of mind.. but rather ones state of mind determines whether a person remains in poverty or not. In some cases that is true, in some cases not.
 
"Ben Carson says poverty is a state of mind" .... read as "Carson thinks a person in poverty is only in their imagination" to a SJW liberal. So lets take that little snippet, write a Carson bashing article about it and call it news..

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2017, 10:08 AM)Vlad Wrote: You should also agree with the premise that the title of the article "Ben Carson says poverty is a state of mind" is misleading.
This article was created under a pretense.

Carsons exact words were "Poverty to a large extent is ALSO a state of mind"....not the end all be all to the reason why poverty exists.

You could also argue that poverty cannot be a state of mind.. but rather ones state of mind determines whether a person remains in poverty or not. In some cases that is true, in some cases not.
 
"Ben Carson says poverty is a state of mind" .... read as "Carson thinks a person in poverty is only in their imagination" to a SJW liberal. So lets take that little snippet, write a Carson bashing article about it and call it news..

Just imagine if Carson would have won the Presidency what open-minded folks would be saying about his personal appearance, the way he talks, and his wife. 

[GMDino]

(05-27-2017, 10:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just imagine if Carson would have won the Presidency what open-minded folks would be saying about his personal appearance, the way he talks, and his wife. 

PESD is just awful....

[Benton]

(05-27-2017, 11:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Benton, is that you?

.

No way. I'm a lot better looking.