Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The term poor has been redefined. It used to mean being cold, hungry, not having a coat in winter nor a lump of coal to cook your food.
Today, someone is poor if they only have a 40" flat screen television instead of a a 50" flat screen television.
Who made you the SCOTUS??????
One sec while I check Rosetta Stone to interpret this one.....
Poverty, like our prison system, has become a government supported industry. Instead of reforming those programs, democrats and many republicans seek to protect the industry because it is profitable for so many.
So while super-geniuses like yourself, who have never lived in an impoverished area, have never worked in a factory and have no first hand knowledge of this supject hypothsize about it, people like myself who have done all of the above no nothing of the subject? YOu are truly an idiot. (Sounding eloquent does not make your statements correct...it just make you sound like a pompous asshole).It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor they way that you all are on this message board.
You know nothing about the subject.
I've worked in factories with people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage. I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs. The poor are very real. They often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter.
They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members.
These are WORKING poor. Those on welfare usually do not live any better.
Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline.
This is not a nation that has equal opportunity, and for many there are no realistic opportunities. Hard work does not pay. Education is not a possibility for many.
Those of us who have had reasonable opportunities in life should be so quick to make up these imaginary 'wealthy' poor people and pretend that real poverty doesn't exist.
1. "It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor..."
You are mistaken, not a new phenomenon in your case. The problem some of us have is not hypothesizing, but in supposing that folks like you are educable.
Yes, we know that the big excuse by right-wingers is that their spoiled-brat kids live with them, and can therefore survive on minimum wage. What about the other 20% of minimum wage workers those that are all grown up and don't live with mommy and daddy?2. "...people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage."
80% of those on minimum wage are not poor.
They live with their family.
Move? To where? Moving is expensive. Are you willing to start a government program to help relocate them? Would you be kind enough to pay for the relocation a expenses for 10,000,00 West Indians? They live on islands, relocation for them is kinda difficult. Where should they go? NYC? That's where I knew an awful lot of poor people. Maybe you could support them.3. "I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs."
I understand that in most areas, folks are still allowed to move.
4. "The poor are very real."
No doubt. The question is the definition of same.
Mine is in the OP. Yours?
5. "...often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter."
Now your talkin' poor!
Blatant Bullshit! The Heritage Foundation?6. "They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members."
This is pretty much bunk.
'a. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.'
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
Or they shouldn't have been hispanic?7. "These are WORKING poor."
Did you know that the Republicans are responsible for Earned Income Tax Credits?
You didn't?
8."Those on welfare usually do not live any better."
Wrong.
There are studies that show that those on welfare actually have more spendable cash than those working folks supporting them.
9. "Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline."
They shouldn't have majored in Angry Women's Studies, or Frisbee.
Sure us Electrical Engineers are grossly uneducated.10. "Education is not a possibility for many."
Your post sure proves this one.
Sure, I'll just go running to the bookstore and get back to you as soon as I've read it. Good argument. Idiot!11. "Hard work does not pay."
Pick up a copy of "Scratch Beginnings," by Alan Shepard.
Pretty much knocks you out.
It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor they way that you all are on this message board.
You know nothing about the subject.
I've worked in factories with people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage. I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs. The poor are very real. They often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter.
They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members.
These are WORKING poor. Those on welfare usually do not live any better.
Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline.
This is not a nation that has equal opportunity, and for many there are no realistic opportunities. Hard work does not pay. Education is not a possibility for many.
Those of us who have had reasonable opportunities in life should be so quick to make up these imaginary 'wealthy' poor people and pretend that real poverty doesn't exist.
So while super-geniuses like yourself, who have never lived in an impoverished area, have never worked in a factory and have no first hand knowledge of this supject hypothsize about it, people like myself who have done all of the above no nothing of the subject? YOu are truly an idiot. (Sounding eloquent does not make your statements correct...it just make you sound like a pompous asshole).It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor they way that you all are on this message board.
You know nothing about the subject.
I've worked in factories with people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage. I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs. The poor are very real. They often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter.
They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members.
These are WORKING poor. Those on welfare usually do not live any better.
Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline.
This is not a nation that has equal opportunity, and for many there are no realistic opportunities. Hard work does not pay. Education is not a possibility for many.
Those of us who have had reasonable opportunities in life should be so quick to make up these imaginary 'wealthy' poor people and pretend that real poverty doesn't exist.
1. "It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor..."
You are mistaken, not a new phenomenon in your case. The problem some of us have is not hypothesizing, but in supposing that folks like you are educable.
Yes, we know that the big excuse by right-wingers is that their spoiled-brat kids live with them, and can therefore survive on minimum wage. What about the other 20% of minimum wage workers those that are all grown up and don't live with mommy and daddy?
Move? To where? Moving is expensive. Are you willing to start a government program to help relocate them? Would you be kind enough to pay for the relocation a expenses for 10,000,00 West Indians? They live on islands, relocation for them is kinda difficult. Where should they go? NYC? That's where I knew an awful lot of poor people. Maybe you could support them.
Do you ever think things thru before you post?
I don't need to define poor. I've known poor people.
Like duh!
Blatant Bullshit! The Heritage Foundation? Or they shouldn't have been hispanic?Sure us Electrical Engineers are grossly uneducated.10. "Education is not a possibility for many."
Your post sure proves this one.Sure, I'll just go running to the bookstore and get back to you as soon as I've read it. Good argument. Idiot!11. "Hard work does not pay."
Pick up a copy of "Scratch Beginnings," by Alan Shepard.
Pretty much knocks you out.
I vote #2,4,6,8,9So if I had started this thread I would be tempted to include a poll:
What is compassion?
1. Making people more comfortable in poverty . . .or . . . .
2. Creating a society in which those who wish to prosper have more opportunity to do so?
3. Feeding the destitute parent and their children, providing them with housing, free phones, transportation, and dignity. . . .or . . . .
4. Requiring parents to take responsibility to provide for their children or lose the children?
5. Lowering standards to accommodate the worker or student who can't meet the requirements. . .or. . .
6. Rewarding those who do what is necessary to meet the specifications and achieve their goals?
7. Rewarding the single parent with many benefits even while diminishing or downplaying the value of traditional two parent families. . .or. . .
8. Having it taught in every classroom and promoted as much as possible that people who wait until they are married to have children will likely prosper far more than the single parent, and children in two parent homes on average are far less likely to be in poverty?
9. Leaving as much money as possible in the hands of local government and taxpayers and trusting them to spend it in the most efficient and effective ways for all. . . .or. . . .
10. Taking more and more of the people's money that is absorbed into an ever growing and bloated government and returning 25 to 35% or so of it in benefits to the people?
The big question for the honest people with integrity to ponder is: How much of what we call compassion is in fact a method of subordinating people and guaranteeing their vote and is in fact creating poverty as much as it is relieving it?
So while super-geniuses like yourself, who have never lived in an impoverished area, have never worked in a factory and have no first hand knowledge of this supject hypothsize about it, people like myself who have done all of the above no nothing of the subject? YOu are truly an idiot. (Sounding eloquent does not make your statements correct...it just make you sound like a pompous asshole).It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor they way that you all are on this message board.
You know nothing about the subject.
I've worked in factories with people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage. I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs. The poor are very real. They often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter.
They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members.
These are WORKING poor. Those on welfare usually do not live any better.
Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline.
This is not a nation that has equal opportunity, and for many there are no realistic opportunities. Hard work does not pay. Education is not a possibility for many.
Those of us who have had reasonable opportunities in life should be so quick to make up these imaginary 'wealthy' poor people and pretend that real poverty doesn't exist.
1. "It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor..."
You are mistaken, not a new phenomenon in your case. The problem some of us have is not hypothesizing, but in supposing that folks like you are educable.
Yes, we know that the big excuse by right-wingers is that their spoiled-brat kids live with them, and can therefore survive on minimum wage. What about the other 20% of minimum wage workers those that are all grown up and don't live with mommy and daddy?
Move? To where? Moving is expensive. Are you willing to start a government program to help relocate them? Would you be kind enough to pay for the relocation a expenses for 10,000,00 West Indians? They live on islands, relocation for them is kinda difficult. Where should they go? NYC? That's where I knew an awful lot of poor people. Maybe you could support them.
Do you ever think things thru before you post?
I don't need to define poor. I've known poor people.
Like duh!
Blatant Bullshit! The Heritage Foundation? Or they shouldn't have been hispanic?Sure us Electrical Engineers are grossly uneducated.10. "Education is not a possibility for many."
Your post sure proves this one.Sure, I'll just go running to the bookstore and get back to you as soon as I've read it. Good argument. Idiot!11. "Hard work does not pay."
Pick up a copy of "Scratch Beginnings," by Alan Shepard.
Pretty much knocks you out.
what poor people would Jesus spit on ?
It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor they way that you all are on this message board.
You know nothing about the subject.
I've worked in factories with people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage. I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs. The poor are very real. They often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter.
They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members.
These are WORKING poor. Those on welfare usually do not live any better.
Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline.
This is not a nation that has equal opportunity, and for many there are no realistic opportunities. Hard work does not pay. Education is not a possibility for many.
Those of us who have had reasonable opportunities in life should be so quick to make up these imaginary 'wealthy' poor people and pretend that real poverty doesn't exist.
Did you know that the Republicans are responsible for Earned Income Tax Credits?
You didn't?
Did you know that the today's Neo-Cons have been demonizing those who get the EITC (i.e. the poor would only use it to buy laptops at Radio Shack) and have been trying to get rid of it for years?
You didn't?
.
Interesting complaint, PC
Apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.
Those selfish bastards!
So you think our income should be taken for the benefit of people who aren't suffering?
Why is that? You don't think even one penny should be given to those who ARE suffering.
Jesus would be so proud to know that those who follow him would depict him as a gun carrying homophobe who would spit on poor people.
Well that puts me in the lower middle class, mine is a 43".The term poor has been redefined. It used to mean being cold, hungry, not having a coat in winter nor a lump of coal to cook your food.
Today, someone is poor if they only have a 40" flat screen television instead of a a 50" flat screen television.
I agree with OP and define poor in the same way. I am sickened by Obama's class warfare which only will slow economic growth and American self reliance.
It's not only Obama's class warfare, it's both parties working on it for decades. The 70's was a watershed decade for eliminating the middle class as lobbyists quadrupled if not more so and politicians continued to sell us out to them. Shit, lobbyists WRITE the bills now!
It's time to wake the hell up people - it's all their faults. I'm reading a couple of books about it now, advent of "wedge economics" hand in hand with "wedge politics." It's got deep deep roots!
US History: Economics of the 1970's
So while super-geniuses like yourself, who have never lived in an impoverished area, have never worked in a factory and have no first hand knowledge of this supject hypothsize about it, people like myself who have done all of the above no nothing of the subject? YOu are truly an idiot. (Sounding eloquent does not make your statements correct...it just make you sound like a pompous asshole).1. "It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor..."
You are mistaken, not a new phenomenon in your case. The problem some of us have is not hypothesizing, but in supposing that folks like you are educable.
Yes, we know that the big excuse by right-wingers is that their spoiled-brat kids live with them, and can therefore survive on minimum wage. What about the other 20% of minimum wage workers those that are all grown up and don't live with mommy and daddy?
Move? To where? Moving is expensive. Are you willing to start a government program to help relocate them? Would you be kind enough to pay for the relocation a expenses for 10,000,00 West Indians? They live on islands, relocation for them is kinda difficult. Where should they go? NYC? That's where I knew an awful lot of poor people. Maybe you could support them.
Do you ever think things thru before you post?
I don't need to define poor. I've known poor people.
Like duh!
Blatant Bullshit! The Heritage Foundation? Or they shouldn't have been hispanic?Sure us Electrical Engineers are grossly uneducated.Sure, I'll just go running to the bookstore and get back to you as soon as I've read it. Good argument. Idiot!11. "Hard work does not pay."
Pick up a copy of "Scratch Beginnings," by Alan Shepard.
Pretty much knocks you out.
You're trying to reason with a supercilious half-smart nutball with the sensitivity of a post and the sensibilities of a pig in shit.
Still, it's kind of cool.
Well that puts me in the lower middle class, mine is a 43".
I agree with OP and define poor in the same way. I am sickened by Obama's class warfare which only will slow economic growth and American self reliance.
It's not only Obama's class warfare, it's both parties working on it for decades. The 70's was a watershed decade for eliminating the middle class as lobbyists quadrupled if not more so and politicians continued to sell us out to them. Shit, lobbyists WRITE the bills now!
It's time to wake the hell up people - it's all their faults. I'm reading a couple of books about it now, advent of "wedge economics" hand in hand with "wedge politics." It's got deep deep roots!
US History: Economics of the 1970's
".... eliminating the middle class..."
And, now for reality:
1. Lets be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. The Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
b. For those who insist that wealth has fallen, this in a discussion of the recession: The decline in home prices and stock portfolios in 2008 wiped out gains in net worth from the previous three years, the Fed said. Median household net worth increased 17.7 percent between 2004 and 2007, but fell 3.2 percent from 2004 through last October, according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. Average American Net Worth Drops 23% - CBS News
c.Today, the country has gone a long way toward an appearance of classlessness. Americans of all sorts are awash in luxuries that would have dazzled their grandparents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?pagewanted=all
A little more?
Sure:
2. "What is missed and not by accident, is that the disappearance is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . " More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes
Isn't it astounding.....when one is as ignorant as you have been kept, you can be manipulated so easily and made to believe anything.
True?
So...you've been reading, have you?
Try Peter Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."
Nah....probably too late for you.
So while super-geniuses like yourself, who have never lived in an impoverished area, have never worked in a factory and have no first hand knowledge of this supject hypothsize about it, people like myself who have done all of the above no nothing of the subject? YOu are truly an idiot. (Sounding eloquent does not make your statements correct...it just make you sound like a pompous asshole).
Yes, we know that the big excuse by right-wingers is that their spoiled-brat kids live with them, and can therefore survive on minimum wage. What about the other 20% of minimum wage workers those that are all grown up and don't live with mommy and daddy?
Move? To where? Moving is expensive. Are you willing to start a government program to help relocate them? Would you be kind enough to pay for the relocation a expenses for 10,000,00 West Indians? They live on islands, relocation for them is kinda difficult. Where should they go? NYC? That's where I knew an awful lot of poor people. Maybe you could support them.
Do you ever think things thru before you post?
I don't need to define poor. I've known poor people.
Like duh!
Blatant Bullshit! The Heritage Foundation? Or they shouldn't have been hispanic?Sure us Electrical Engineers are grossly uneducated.Sure, I'll just go running to the bookstore and get back to you as soon as I've read it. Good argument. Idiot!
You're trying to reason with a supercilious half-smart nutball with the sensitivity of a post and the sensibilities of a pig in shit.
Still, it's kind of cool.
Look who's back!
Why...it's the lying sack of excrement who posted that I had reported him to administrators for some offense or other...and he had his little wrist slapped.
This is the second or third time I've asked you to either document same or apologize...and you run off and hide.
Well?
Either course?
It's not only Obama's class warfare, it's both parties working on it for decades. The 70's was a watershed decade for eliminating the middle class as lobbyists quadrupled if not more so and politicians continued to sell us out to them. Shit, lobbyists WRITE the bills now!
It's time to wake the hell up people - it's all their faults. I'm reading a couple of books about it now, advent of "wedge economics" hand in hand with "wedge politics." It's got deep deep roots!
US History: Economics of the 1970's
".... eliminating the middle class..."
And, now for reality:
1. Lets be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. The Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
b. For those who insist that wealth has fallen, this in a discussion of the recession: The decline in home prices and stock portfolios in 2008 wiped out gains in net worth from the previous three years, the Fed said. Median household net worth increased 17.7 percent between 2004 and 2007, but fell 3.2 percent from 2004 through last October, according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. Average American Net Worth Drops 23% - CBS News
c.Today, the country has gone a long way toward an appearance of classlessness. Americans of all sorts are awash in luxuries that would have dazzled their grandparents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?pagewanted=all
A little more?
Sure:
2. "What is missed and not by accident, is that the disappearance is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . " More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes
Isn't it astounding.....when one is as ignorant as you have been kept, you can be manipulated so easily and made to believe anything.
True?
So...you've been reading, have you?
Try Peter Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."
Nah....probably too late for you.
OK, so reading current studies with INTERVIEWS of the major players, in your tiny world view, makes one ignorant? No, fuck YOU! It's too late for YOU, for all you are is a wanna be Ann Coulter where everything is 100% the way YOU say it. The sign of a pathological mine, highly neurotic, certainly narcissistic and maybe even psychotic. Why the fuck aren't aren't you writing books, studies, papers and enlightening the masses with your infinite supply of 100% foolproof logic?
Were you born with this high of an opinion of yourself, or did you have to work at it?
