Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 676
- 190
Yes, I suppose all those Governmental agencies that liberals love so much clearly listed at the bottom of each chart are cooking the books.
The reason I don't grant the legitimacy of the data (as presented by Heritage.org) is because I haven't studied the polling methodology or any of the other methods used by US Dept. of Energy under the Bush administration (2001, 2005) to collect the relevant information.
As for the more up-to-date pie chart on housing:
And with a 40% home ownership rate, a 40% renters rate, and an 18% subsidized housing rate among the "poor" who can afford anything but the bare necessities?
Yes, believe it or not, it's often cheaper to buy than it is to rent, especially in neighborhoods nobody really wants to live in -- so, big fucking whoop.
So, let me see if I'm picking up what you're putting down: you seem to be suggesting, that since many poor Americans have a roofs over their heads, TV's, VCR's, DVD players, video game systems, ETC. (never mind the fact that much of that stuff is dirt cheap second-hand), we should therefore undercut social programs to ensure that poor Americans live in abject poverty?
If they have anything more than a roof and chow, they are receiving too much public assistance. All the other crap you list...if they can afford that, they can damned well pay for their own food and shelter. Why should I give a damn about priorities when they obviously don't. I pay for housing and food, they get to buy whatever other shit they want...I don't think so.
It's legal vote buying fraud / theft by design
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqLrvwplCiY]Good Intentions Gone Awry: Welfare Abuse Rampant - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szhFgyl589w]Ohio Medicaid Russian Drug Smuggling Investigation - YouTube[/ame]