Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My, my. The liberals are really bending over backward in this thread to avoid talking about its actual subject:
Most of the "poor" in this country are living lives of comparative prosperity, and are "poor" in name only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article linked in OP
Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor” (http://tinyurl.com/448flj8), report that:
* 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning;
* nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more.
* Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
* Half have one or more computers.
* Forty-two percent own their homes.
And while those bleeding hearts scream endlessly about the horrors of going to bed hungry, the fact is that the most prevalent health problem among the "poor" in this country is not malnutrition. It's obesity.
Your article didn't deny that we spend over $1 trillion and didn't deny that there are 80+ programs.
Your article delved into that $XXXX per poor person per day and fixated on that.
Is $1 trillion not enough ?
Should we spend $2 trillion so that the poor get enough subsidies to not be classified as "poor" ?
I think the debate is what constitutes welfare.
The debate again never boils down to an economic one but a political one. A clash of ideologies and political philosophy.
I also think you guys have a skewed vision of poverty too. Those images of extreme grinding poverty with people living in shacks and sharing a bowl of rice are not the majority per se. A lot of the world has been globalized and industrialized.
A lot of the world just works and lives paycheck to paycheck working in factories or offices but are still relatively just scratching by. The US is only marginally better at the lowest rung.
I wouldn't look at the poverty here in America and compare it to Haiti Nigeria or even Mexico but some of the more post-developing nations like Chile, Poland or Russia. Not to that extent but bourgeoning on that level. We still have the gains of the last half century holding the nation afloat. And this still is a much better country to be in than Russia but what I'm saying is that despite our relative prosperity vs developing nations, poverty is still a serious issue.
no, his answer is make everyone that isnt poor, poor, and thus the poor wont seem poor..
So to y'all its a zero sum game? Take from the rich and watch everyone get poor? Give the rich what they want and watch us all prosper? How convenient!
So to y'all its a zero sum game? Take from the rich and watch everyone get poor? Give the rich what they want and watch us all prosper? How convenient!
I have yet to meet a billionaire that didnt have tens, if not hundreds of thousands of employees..
You cant "benefit" others without FIRST taking that money out of the economy.. What part of this dont you comprehend?
If I take $1,000 from you and give it to another web poster here, and then claim that because that other poster lives in the projects and spends it, that others in their community benefit, thus we need to count all of those individuals as an added bonus, then I'd be a complete ass because it ignores that I just took money from you and you also would have spent it in your own communtiy and benefited others..
I'd never be dumb enough to post such crap, but it seems you dont have that problem.
You are wasting your breath. Some people just don't understand basic economics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.