If you live in America, you are the wealthy

[mudwhistle]

thanks to liberal programs that make sure our people don't die in the streets

so when you walk around talking about how 'lucky' our poor should feel to subsist, thank people like me... who vote to take care of our poorest, our sickest our weakest and our oldest...

so if i were you, i wouldn't be taking credit for america's largesse.

and while we're at it, what percentage of our budget goes to our military budget as opposed to helping people?

Ask people who have been rescued by our Military or the National Guard during national disasters and then see if the military budget doesnt "help people"

Thats not including the personal growth one can get from a military career, or the scientific advancement from military research.

And I do agree union formation and progressive politics helped shape our nation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The problem is that those poltiics have gone from righting great injustices to a system of self perpetuation for certain polticians and creation of work rules meant to stifle innovation and lower productivity.

i don't know. why don't you try asking the people who lived through katrina. i'm thinking they didn't think brownie did such a heck of a job.

as for the rest of what you said, well... you've got the meme down.

but the reality is before social security, 50% of our elderly lived in poverty.
before wage and hour laws and laws governing worker safety went into effect, children worked in sweat shops and women got locked into factories while they worked themselves blind and crippled and burned in fires.

you should know all of the history.. not just what your politics dictate.

Yes, those days a pretty much history in America. Now we're opening factories in Vietnam that do the same thing.

 

[miami_thomas]

If one is stupid enough to buy into the concept that wealth = money, then I suppose this POV makes sense.

Of course the real test of wealth is quality of life, not the amount of cash one has acccess to to have a quality life.

Ergo, the QUALITY OF LIFE of most welfare folks must be compared to the QAULITY OF LIFE of others if one wants to determine their relative wealth.

One might want to look at things like morbity and mortality stats as well as access to food, shelter and clothing, and that sort of thing if one really wants to understand the condition of people's lives.

And all those things are better than the middle class of those countries. Our poor have televisions, cable tv, cell phones, cars, houses, etc.... I can guarantee you the middle class of those countries do not have these things.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If one is stupid enough to buy into the concept that wealth = money, then I suppose this POV makes sense.

Of course the real test of wealth is quality of life, not the amount of cash one has acccess to to have a quality life.

Ergo, the QUALITY OF LIFE of most welfare folks must be compared to the QAULITY OF LIFE of others if one wants to determine their relative wealth.

One might want to look at things like morbity and mortality stats as well as access to food, shelter and clothing, and that sort of thing if one really wants to understand the condition of people's lives.

And all those things are better than the middle class of those countries. Our poor have televisions, cable tv, cell phones, cars, houses, etc.... I can guarantee you the middle class of those countries do not have these things.

Thank the free market and people that work hard for giving us the wealth we enjoy!

 

[zeke]

If one is stupid enough to buy into the concept that wealth = money, then I suppose this POV makes sense.

Of course the real test of wealth is quality of life, not the amount of cash one has acccess to to have a quality life.

Ergo, the QUALITY OF LIFE of most welfare folks must be compared to the QAULITY OF LIFE of others if one wants to determine their relative wealth.

One might want to look at things like morbity and mortality stats as well as access to food, shelter and clothing, and that sort of thing if one really wants to understand the condition of people's lives.

Relative wealth to the rest of the world is of course the real comparison here.

The poorest amongst us can walk into a hospital and get $100,000 worth of services.

No charge.[/QUOTE]



And you think that is a good thing? Supposed "No Charge" medical care. Someone is paying that bill you asshole. What a fuking idiot you are.

 

[miami_thomas]

Maybe so, but every Italian or even the French can see a doctor when they’re sick, America can’t seem to afford that.

Who does not have access in America to health care? Who are these mystery people? Before Obama I thought anyone could walk into an Emergency room and was guaranteed health care? I thought there were hospitals that were funded to provide care for the poor like Jackson in Florida and Cooper Green in Alabama, etc…. You see it is health insurance we are talking about here not health care. Health care has been available to everyone. What Democrats want is not to provide health care to everyone but to provide equal health care to everyone.

 

[miami_thomas]

Maybe so, but every Italian or even the French can see a doctor when they’re sick, America can’t seem to afford that.

Yes, but once diagnosed, how long do they have to wait for certain procedures?

You have to wait forever in the countries you are praising. Really you need to do research.

 

[miami_thomas]

Six out of every ten dollars of cuts in the Ryan budget are cuts to programs that help the poor,

so wherever America's poor are now, they will be a whole lot poorer when the Republicans get through with them.

Currently we are just giving them money. We are taking money from someone and giving it to them to sit around on their butts. We are just wanting to stop taking money to just give to someone and instead try to get those that are getting the money now to work for it.

 

[miami_thomas]

thanks to liberal programs that make sure our people don't die in the streets

so when you walk around talking about how 'lucky' our poor should feel to subsist, thank people like me... who vote to take care of our poorest, our sickest our weakest and our oldest...

so if i were you, i wouldn't be taking credit for america's largesse.

and while we're at it, what percentage of our budget goes to our military budget as opposed to helping people?

Ask people who have been rescued by our Military or the National Guard during national disasters and then see if the military budget doesnt "help people"

Thats not including the personal growth one can get from a military career, or the scientific advancement from military research.

And I do agree union formation and progressive politics helped shape our nation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The problem is that those poltiics have gone from righting great injustices to a system of self perpetuation for certain polticians and creation of work rules meant to stifle innovation and lower productivity.

i don't know. why don't you try asking the people who lived through katrina. i'm thinking they didn't think brownie did such a heck of a job.

as for the rest of what you said, well... you've got the meme down.

but the reality is before social security, 50% of our elderly lived in poverty.
before wage and hour laws and laws governing worker safety went into effect, children worked in sweat shops and women got locked into factories while they worked themselves blind and crippled and burned in fires.

you should know all of the history.. not just what your politics dictate.

You are talking about America? What history are you talking about?

 

[antagon]

4 more years of Obama and we will be the poor nation in your diatribe.

No one dude is going to make us poor. You big government guys think Obama's going to do everything.

 

[antagon]

If one is stupid enough to buy into the concept that wealth = money, then I suppose this POV makes sense.

Of course the real test of wealth is quality of life, not the amount of cash one has acccess to to have a quality life.

Ergo, the QUALITY OF LIFE of most welfare folks must be compared to the QAULITY OF LIFE of others if one wants to determine their relative wealth.

One might want to look at things like morbity and mortality stats as well as access to food, shelter and clothing, and that sort of thing if one really wants to understand the condition of people's lives.

And all those things are better than the middle class of those countries. Our poor have televisions, cable tv, cell phones, cars, houses, etc.... I can guarantee you the middle class of those countries do not have these things.

Well, maybe not the cable TV.

 

[SniperFire]

If one is stupid enough to buy into the concept that wealth = money, then I suppose this POV makes sense.

Of course the real test of wealth is quality of life, not the amount of cash one has acccess to to have a quality life.

Ergo, the QUALITY OF LIFE of most welfare folks must be compared to the QAULITY OF LIFE of others if one wants to determine their relative wealth.

One might want to look at things like morbity and mortality stats as well as access to food, shelter and clothing, and that sort of thing if one really wants to understand the condition of people's lives.

Relative wealth to the rest of the world is of course the real comparison here.

The poorest amongst us can walk into a hospital and get $100,000 worth of services.

No charge.[/QUOTE]



And you think that is a good thing? Supposed "No Charge" medical care. Someone is paying that bill you asshole. What a fuking idiot you are.

A generous conservative, typically.

 

[miami_thomas]

If one is stupid enough to buy into the concept that wealth = money, then I suppose this POV makes sense.

Of course the real test of wealth is quality of life, not the amount of cash one has acccess to to have a quality life.

Ergo, the QUALITY OF LIFE of most welfare folks must be compared to the QAULITY OF LIFE of others if one wants to determine their relative wealth.

One might want to look at things like morbity and mortality stats as well as access to food, shelter and clothing, and that sort of thing if one really wants to understand the condition of people's lives.

And all those things are better than the middle class of those countries. Our poor have televisions, cable tv, cell phones, cars, houses, etc.... I can guarantee you the middle class of those countries do not have these things.

Well, maybe not the cable TV.

Have you been to other countries before? Have you seen how big their place is? Have you seen their furniture? Have you seen their televisions? I can tell you I have and their working middle class would trade places with our poor in a heart beat.

 

[antagon]

And all those things are better than the middle class of those countries. Our poor have televisions, cable tv, cell phones, cars, houses, etc.... I can guarantee you the middle class of those countries do not have these things.

Well, maybe not the cable TV.

Have you been to other countries before? Have you seen how big their place is? Have you seen their furniture? Have you seen their televisions? I can tell you I have and their working middle class would trade places with our poor in a heart beat.

Most of my traveling has been to the developed world or has been in the company of wealthier folks than you are referring to. Cars and TVs aren't that rare in the middle class, and it's difficult to agree on the size of their homes as a rule. In Brazil, Mexico and the Caribbean, where I have hung out the most with developing world middle class in their homes, I saw that their land was larger than most Americans making similar money. They owned all the equity in their home. They had more service in their home, and didn't watch much TV.

There were things which did not seem like American 'wealth', but not the stuff you call out. Try air conditioning, ice and paved driveways, fencing and underground utilities. Gas was in tanks, rather than piped in, etc. They clearly lacked a humane society to clean up the dogs and cats or an HOA telling them not to paint their house pink...

 

[miami_thomas]

Well, maybe not the cable TV.

Have you been to other countries before? Have you seen how big their place is? Have you seen their furniture? Have you seen their televisions? I can tell you I have and their working middle class would trade places with our poor in a heart beat.

Most of my traveling has been to the developed world or has been in the company of wealthier folks than you are referring to. Cars and TVs aren't that rare in the middle class, and it's difficult to agree on the size of their homes as a rule. In Brazil, Mexico and the Caribbean, where I have hung out the most with developing world middle class in their homes, I saw that their land was larger than most Americans making similar money. They owned all the equity in their home. They had more service in their home, and didn't watch much TV.

There were things which did not seem like American 'wealth', but not the stuff you call out. Try air conditioning, ice and paved driveways, fencing and underground utilities. Gas was in tanks, rather than piped in, etc. They clearly lacked a humane society to clean up the dogs and cats or an HOA telling them not to paint their house pink...

Here are your poor and I can guarantee you they have more than the middle class you are referring to.

Strange Facts about America

"The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom."

 

[Seawytch]

I really love this RW meme of "our poor aren't poor enough". "You can't be poor, you have a microwave". Seriously, ya'll can't possibly be that clueless...

 

[SniperFire]

I really love this RW meme of "our poor aren't poor enough". "You can't be poor, you have a microwave". Seriously, ya'll can't possibly be that clueless...

Strawman, much?


LOL

 

[Seawytch]

The idiot strawman is saying our poor aren't poor enough because they have refrigerators and microwaves.

 

[antagon]

Have you been to other countries before? Have you seen how big their place is? Have you seen their furniture? Have you seen their televisions? I can tell you I have and their working middle class would trade places with our poor in a heart beat.

Most of my traveling has been to the developed world or has been in the company of wealthier folks than you are referring to. Cars and TVs aren't that rare in the middle class, and it's difficult to agree on the size of their homes as a rule. In Brazil, Mexico and the Caribbean, where I have hung out the most with developing world middle class in their homes, I saw that their land was larger than most Americans making similar money. They owned all the equity in their home. They had more service in their home, and didn't watch much TV.

There were things which did not seem like American 'wealth', but not the stuff you call out. Try air conditioning, ice and paved driveways, fencing and underground utilities. Gas was in tanks, rather than piped in, etc. They clearly lacked a humane society to clean up the dogs and cats or an HOA telling them not to paint their house pink...

Here are your poor and I can guarantee you they have more than the middle class you are referring to.

Strange Facts about America

"The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom."

Now you're comparing house sizes between the US and Europe? I have been in lots of American's homes. You'd probably call these people poor. Nobody wants all that stuff they have. They don't own boats or their houses or get to travel or retain earnings like some of the foreigners I'm acquainted with.

Nobody's refuting our prosperity here, but I think you're mistaking lifestyle differences with wealth. I've visited the humble home of a chic I went to university with. They were foreign (Philipino) middle class and had a decent house... nothing that would awe an American like me. I'd even say I had my 3rd world goggles on. They paid for private university cash every year - some $30k.

 

[Katzndogz]

Isn't lowering the standard of living for all Americans obama's goal? Why should our poor be the rich of the world? Everyone should live by third world standards, we won't be Imperial anymore.

 

[martybegan]

thanks to liberal programs that make sure our people don't die in the streets

so when you walk around talking about how 'lucky' our poor should feel to subsist, thank people like me... who vote to take care of our poorest, our sickest our weakest and our oldest...

so if i were you, i wouldn't be taking credit for america's largesse.

and while we're at it, what percentage of our budget goes to our military budget as opposed to helping people?

Ask people who have been rescued by our Military or the National Guard during national disasters and then see if the military budget doesnt "help people"

Thats not including the personal growth one can get from a military career, or the scientific advancement from military research.

And I do agree union formation and progressive politics helped shape our nation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The problem is that those poltiics have gone from righting great injustices to a system of self perpetuation for certain polticians and creation of work rules meant to stifle innovation and lower productivity.

i don't know. why don't you try asking the people who lived through katrina. i'm thinking they didn't think brownie did such a heck of a job.

as for the rest of what you said, well... you've got the meme down.

but the reality is before social security, 50% of our elderly lived in poverty.
before wage and hour laws and laws governing worker safety went into effect, children worked in sweat shops and women got locked into factories while they worked themselves blind and crippled and burned in fires.

you should know all of the history.. not just what your politics dictate.

Katrina would have been 1000 times worse alot of other countries. Just ask Bangladesh about that. Hurricanes and earthquakes are the worst type of natural disaster due to the wide area affected and the inability to actually get into the area quickly after it is done, for hurricanes due to the need to stay out of its path, and for earthquakes due to the unpredictablilty.

Once the rescue response got ramped up it went well. We can assign blame to both the state and feds for not setting it up right, but once up and running it worked as good as it could.

Also you have to not fall for the "hollywood" effect of disaster respose, where everything is resolved in a 1-1/2 movie. Things like this take time.


And the elderly 50% poverty rate is not realistic, as SS went into effect during the depression, when most people were dealing with poverty.

I stated before I agree with what happened earlier this century, and the early progressive movment was needed. But like the civil rights movement after the 70's it overreached.