American, 50% of our citizens are poor or low income. Shame!

[Againsheila]

Does it mention the two TV's, computer, cell phone that thees "poor" own ? Wonder if a poor Mexican in Mexico has that stuff ? Or Somalia ? Sheesh.

Again, I know a lot of poor with more than one tv, all given to them by people upgrading to the flat panel tvs. In some cases they can't even use those tvs as they can't afford the boxes so that they can get a signal. Most people have given up their land line in favor the cell phone and that's especially true for the poor that have no place to call their own. Old computers are often given to the poor. It doesn't mean they are any less poor. Even our local food bank has some old computers and game systems that have been given to them by people who are upgrading and they give them out to families. How shameful, guess you'd be happier if those things went straight to the dump.

 

[editec]

Is it possible for you folks to distinguish between actual socialism and any social program?

No, as muct be obvious by now, it is not possible for those folks to make such a subtle distinction.

But if one applies their basic theories to our government?

Then everything government does (which ought to include even those things that these morons like) is socialist.

Hell folks, applying their political theory honestly, half the people here who are retired or active military are socialist parasites.

 

[SAT2]

"low income" is defined as $44,000. That's pretty close to the median income in this country. In other words, they simply define "low income" as the half the country making less than the median income. The median income is the point where half of incomes are lower and half are higher.

So is it a surprise that "low income" people constitute half the wage earners in the country?

ROFL! According to the way they define the term, it would be impossible for less than 50% of wage earners to be "low income."

The fact that you posted this manure shows only that there is no natural limit to the gullibility of libtards.

No, they define low income as being 100 to 199% of the poverty level. Not as everyone below the median income.

Here's the definition of poverty level:

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.

Does it mention the two TV's, computer, cell phone that thees "poor" own ? Wonder if a poor Mexican in Mexico has that stuff ? Or Somalia ? Sheesh.

Again, I know a lot of poor with more than one tv, all given to them by people upgrading to the flat panel tvs. In some cases they can't even use those tvs as they can't afford the boxes so that they can get a signal. Most people have given up their land line in favor the cell phone and that's especially true for the poor that have no place to call their own. Old computers are often given to the poor. It doesn't mean they are any less poor. Even our local food bank has some old computers and game systems that have been given to them by people who are upgrading and they give them out to families. How shameful, guess you'd be happier if those things went straight to the dump.

Well said. A cell phone is seen as a luxury by those who grew up with landlines-who, like my household, have a landline AND a cell phone. Many poor folks have only a cell phone, and it's often a prepaid cell phone, which they lose the second that the minutes run out, and then get another when they are able.

Is it possible for you folks to distinguish between actual socialism and any social program?

No, as muct be obvious by now, it is not possible for those folks to make such a subtle distinction.

But if one applies their basic theories to our government?

Then everything government does (which ought to include even those things that these morons like) is socialist.

Hell folks, applying their political theory honestly, half the people here who are retired or active military are socialist parasites.

Damn straight. And well over their perpetually angry heads. Therefore, our support for TANF is the same thing as Stalinism.

 

[hortysir]

Now that we have (depending on your viewpoint) defined low income.

How many are there?

 

[Chris]

 

[bripat9643]

"low income" is defined as $44,000. That's pretty close to the median income in this country. In other words, they simply define "low income" as the half the country making less than the median income. The median income is the point where half of incomes are lower and half are higher.

So is it a surprise that "low income" people constitute half the wage earners in the country?

ROFL! According to the way they define the term, it would be impossible for less than 50% of wage earners to be "low income."

The fact that you posted this manure shows only that there is no natural limit to the gullibility of libtards.

No, they define low income as being 100 to 199% of the poverty level. Not as everyone below the median income.

199% is $44,000, dipstick. That's almost the median income.

 

[expat_panama]

Nobody in their right mind is ever going to agree that your imagined 'middle class' --or any class for that matter-- was better off with double digit unemployment and double digit inflation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no standard definition for the American Middle Class, though three academic models are offered for perusal in this link (published in 2002, 2005 & 2004) with population percentages. Note the dates for these models pre-date the near economic collapse of 2008 and the subsequent rise in the unemployed and loss of home equity.

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The matrix is below the text discussion of the different classes in our country.

 

[SAT2]

"low income" is defined as $44,000. That's pretty close to the median income in this country. In other words, they simply define "low income" as the half the country making less than the median income. The median income is the point where half of incomes are lower and half are higher.

So is it a surprise that "low income" people constitute half the wage earners in the country?

ROFL! According to the way they define the term, it would be impossible for less than 50% of wage earners to be "low income."

The fact that you posted this manure shows only that there is no natural limit to the gullibility of libtards.

No, they define low income as being 100 to 199% of the poverty level. Not as everyone below the median income.

199% is $44,000, dipstick. That's almost the median income.

Right, it's almost the median income. That doesn't change my point.

 

[Dragon]

199% is $44,000, dipstick. That's almost the median income.

I wonder if you have any idea of the implications of that statement. Probably not.

Median income ought to be a lot more than twice the official poverty line. The fact that it isn't means something is very, very wrong. As if we didn't know that already.