More Proof: The Left Has Been Hoodwinked

1. The statistical illusion known as ‘the vanishing middle class’ is produced by defining the middle class by some fixed interval of income.- say, between $35k and $50k- and then by counting the number of individuals are in that interval over the years.

Actually, I've never seen anyone do it that way. A middle class income is one that permits a middle-class lifestyle, which includes home ownership, a new car ever five years or so, the ability to raise a family and send the kids to college, and the ability to do a modest amount of traveling for pleasure while saving something for retirement. The opportunity to achieve a lifestyle like this has declined;'the opportunity to do it on a single income has almost disappeared, except in the ranks of the professional "upper" middle class.
 
1. The statistical illusion known as ‘the vanishing middle class’ is produced by defining the middle class by some fixed interval of income.- say, between $35k and $50k- and then by counting the number of individuals are in that interval over the years.

Actually, I've never seen anyone do it that way. A middle class income is one that permits a middle-class lifestyle, which includes home ownership, a new car ever five years or so, the ability to raise a family and send the kids to college, and the ability to do a modest amount of traveling for pleasure while saving something for retirement. The opportunity to achieve a lifestyle like this has declined;'the opportunity to do it on a single income has almost disappeared, except in the ranks of the professional "upper" middle class.

1. "Actually, I've never seen anyone do it that way."
Thomas Sowell, "Economic Facts and Fallacies," p.140.

2. "A middle class income is one that permits a middle-class lifestyle, which includes home ownership, a new car ever five years or so, the ability to raise a family and send the kids to college, and the ability to do a modest amount of traveling for pleasure while saving something for retirement."

Here...let me sing along with you:
"In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
There's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night.
Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees
The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains."


3."The opportunity to achieve a lifestyle like this has declined;..."
Wrong again....


The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

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


Limitations of time and space, plus your limitations in orientation prevent me from providing data that indicate that methods of calculating improvements in remuneration, as well as falling costs of 'luxury' products, and misleading government statistics such as inflation,.....

....but, rest assured, I am able to provide same.
 
[pointless rhetoric snipped]

The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption.

No. Like "average income," this figure treats living standards as if everyone had the same amount of income. They don't. All that the increase in per capita consumption means is that the amount of wealth produced per capita has increased over time. The problem we face is not underproduction but maldistribution: the fact that this average figure is built on increasing amounts of the nation's wealth going to the richest few, while the rest live on scraps.

I guess I will say something about your "big rock candy mountain" bullshit, even though it doesn't deserve a response: what I described was EXACTLY the way that my family lived when I was a boy, on one blue-collar income, right here in the real world. It is not a fantasy -- or at least, in the past, it was not.

Which is the point, of course.
 
1. "As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else.

2. A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.

3. “What the government defines as poverty is vastly different from what most Americans envision,” he writes in his newly released book, “The People’s Money.”

4. ...details from two recent Department of Agriculture surveys: On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal....96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food.

5. “About 40 million Americans are officially defined as living below the poverty line. Yet most of those have adequate levels of food, shelter, clothing and medical care.

6. Sixty-three percent of American adults believe such a family is not living in poverty,” he writes. “Only 16 percent believe that a family is living in poverty if it has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR, but that’s what the average family living in poverty has as defined by the U.S. government,”...

7. ...doesn’t mean to criticize households with earnings of $22,314, the 2010 poverty level for a family of four, but finds that the nation believes too much is being spent on welfare.

8. ... 71 percent believe too many are receiving federal welfare benefits and would like to see official measures of poverty tightened...

9. The president, however, is going the other way and even reviving plans to help homeowners refinance their mortgages, an idea similar to a stimulus-era idea that in part led to the Tea Party movement.

10. ...the administration’s spending on means-tested programs like food stamps, public housing assistance, weatherization spending and others “is slated to continue growing dramatically even after the recession comes to an end.”
Feds:


Let the hand-wringing begin!

and it doesn't end there, according to the census ( 2009); 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money.

Warren Kozak: The Myth of the Starving Americans - WSJ.com



remembering too, that hunger is relative, it even goes further, consider; in Wisconsin over 370,000 children receive free lunches at school, however, less than 40k are condidered poverty line poor.......so who eats the other 300k some odd lunches?

Middle class kids, thats who. AND, when applying for federal aid for such prgms what number do you think they use? Ipso facto they provide free lunches to 370k, so thats what the ask for to be funded and, that too becomes a statistic added to the numbers justifying spending over 100 BILLION dollars on these prgms......


Oh and do you know that the lobby grp. for fast foods chains is trying to get congress to buy off on allowing them to accept EBT? We'l see were that goes.
Ratmuffin, now there's an unbiased source! :cuckoo:
A 20 year old VCR, yeah that's a sure sign of wealth! :lol:
An old used jalopy is another sign of living high on the hog.
An old Atari 2600 video game is yet another sign of the poor living too well.

If it wasn't for all these wealthy poor people the poor rich people would be wealthy.
 
[pointless rhetoric snipped]

The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption.

No. Like "average income," this figure treats living standards as if everyone had the same amount of income. They don't. All that the increase in per capita consumption means is that the amount of wealth produced per capita has increased over time. The problem we face is not underproduction but maldistribution: the fact that this average figure is built on increasing amounts of the nation's wealth going to the richest few, while the rest live on scraps.

I guess I will say something about your "big rock candy mountain" bullshit, even though it doesn't deserve a response: what I described was EXACTLY the way that my family lived when I was a boy, on one blue-collar income, right here in the real world. It is not a fantasy -- or at least, in the past, it was not.

Which is the point, of course.

1. "pointless rhetoric snipped"
Exactly what I was getting at when I said 'the limitations of your orientation.'


2. No better example could be provided that the following: "...increasing amounts of the nation's wealth going to the richest few, while the rest live on scraps."

There is no quintile that remains static. None.
As much as you blame-America-blame-society dolts try, the evidence is clear.


a. "More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell."
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com

b. When all sources of income are included -- wages, salaries, realized capital gains, dividends, business income and government benefits -- and taxes paid are deducted, households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005. (See chart nearby; the data is from the Congressional Budget Office's "Comprehensive Household Income.") This fact alone refutes the notion that the poor are getting poorer. They are not.
The data also show downward mobility among the highest income earners. The top 1% in 1996 saw an average decline in their real, after-tax incomes by 52% in the next 10 years.

America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...536934297.html

c. There's a lot of income mobility in America, so comparing poor families today with the poor families of 10 years ago can be misleading because they're not the same families. Every year hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and the young enter the workforce at "poor" income levels. But the CBO study found that, with the exception of chronically poor families who have no breadwinner, low-income job holders are climbing the income ladder.
The Poor Get Richer - WSJ.com

d. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.”
An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010


So, friend Boo-Hoo, seems you are wrong in every single post this morn, huh?

Again: 'refutes the notion that the poor are getting poorer. They are not.
The data also show downward mobility among the highest income earners. The top 1% in 1996 saw an average decline in their real, after-tax incomes by 52%'


Why don't you go bite the head off a live chicken, take a few aspirins, and lie down for month or two.
Won't make you feel better, but might work a little better for the rest of the folks.
 
1. "As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else.

2. A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.

3. “What the government defines as poverty is vastly different from what most Americans envision,” he writes in his newly released book, “The People’s Money.”

4. ...details from two recent Department of Agriculture surveys: On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal....96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food.

5. “About 40 million Americans are officially defined as living below the poverty line. Yet most of those have adequate levels of food, shelter, clothing and medical care.

6. Sixty-three percent of American adults believe such a family is not living in poverty,” he writes. “Only 16 percent believe that a family is living in poverty if it has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR, but that’s what the average family living in poverty has as defined by the U.S. government,”...

7. ...doesn’t mean to criticize households with earnings of $22,314, the 2010 poverty level for a family of four, but finds that the nation believes too much is being spent on welfare.

8. ... 71 percent believe too many are receiving federal welfare benefits and would like to see official measures of poverty tightened...

9. The president, however, is going the other way and even reviving plans to help homeowners refinance their mortgages, an idea similar to a stimulus-era idea that in part led to the Tea Party movement.

10. ...the administration’s spending on means-tested programs like food stamps, public housing assistance, weatherization spending and others “is slated to continue growing dramatically even after the recession comes to an end.”
Feds:


Let the hand-wringing begin!

and it doesn't end there, according to the census ( 2009); 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money.

Warren Kozak: The Myth of the Starving Americans - WSJ.com



remembering too, that hunger is relative, it even goes further, consider; in Wisconsin over 370,000 children receive free lunches at school, however, less than 40k are condidered poverty line poor.......so who eats the other 300k some odd lunches?

Middle class kids, thats who. AND, when applying for federal aid for such prgms what number do you think they use? Ipso facto they provide free lunches to 370k, so thats what the ask for to be funded and, that too becomes a statistic added to the numbers justifying spending over 100 BILLION dollars on these prgms......


Oh and do you know that the lobby grp. for fast foods chains is trying to get congress to buy off on allowing them to accept EBT? We'l see were that goes.
Ratmuffin, now there's an unbiased source! :cuckoo:
A 20 year old VCR, yeah that's a sure sign of wealth! :lol:
An old used jalopy is another sign of living high on the hog.
An old Atari 2600 video game is yet another sign of the poor living too well.

If it wasn't for all these wealthy poor people the poor rich people would be wealthy.

Post #35 is for you, too.

PSYCHE!!!!!!
 
So everything is okay as long as it's not as bad as Africa? That's the direction Republicans wanna take us?

Yeah I knew it was a matter of time before someone dusted off that old chestnut. Americans arent poor because other people in other countries are poorer is one I hope the GOP runs with. \

Except that that isn't the argument at all.
I understand how your straw argument would make you feel better about yourself, that you hadn't been used by the Leftist media-masters....but you have been....big time.


Assume arguendo that post #20 is true...and it is sourced....then the 'poor' about whom you are so concerned....are able to live in the United States on the equivalent of almost $90,000!

Again, from that post: "So...to summarize the above, the $22,314, when combined with the means-tested in-kind and transfers from government ($67,200) means that our 'poor' family of four has an equivalent income of $89,514."

Realize that that is almost twice what the average working family that pays the taxes that make that $90k possible is making???

Feel like a real jerk now, don't you?


No because your post is a justification of why you believe the poor aint "really poor". And anytime you throw in Africa on a discussion about Americas poor...yeah, you are comparing one to the other to say American poor aint bad.
 
Yeah I knew it was a matter of time before someone dusted off that old chestnut. Americans arent poor because other people in other countries are poorer is one I hope the GOP runs with. \

Except that that isn't the argument at all.
I understand how your straw argument would make you feel better about yourself, that you hadn't been used by the Leftist media-masters....but you have been....big time.


Assume arguendo that post #20 is true...and it is sourced....then the 'poor' about whom you are so concerned....are able to live in the United States on the equivalent of almost $90,000!

Again, from that post: "So...to summarize the above, the $22,314, when combined with the means-tested in-kind and transfers from government ($67,200) means that our 'poor' family of four has an equivalent income of $89,514."

Realize that that is almost twice what the average working family that pays the taxes that make that $90k possible is making???

Feel like a real jerk now, don't you?


No because your post is a justification of why you believe the poor aint "really poor". And anytime you throw in Africa on a discussion about Americas poor...yeah, you are comparing one to the other to say American poor aint bad.
On scale? Americans aren't.
 
1. "As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else.

2. A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.

3. “What the government defines as poverty is vastly different from what most Americans envision,” he writes in his newly released book, “The People’s Money.”

4. ...details from two recent Department of Agriculture surveys: On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal....96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food.

5. “About 40 million Americans are officially defined as living below the poverty line. Yet most of those have adequate levels of food, shelter, clothing and medical care.

6. Sixty-three percent of American adults believe such a family is not living in poverty,” he writes. “Only 16 percent believe that a family is living in poverty if it has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR, but that’s what the average family living in poverty has as defined by the U.S. government,”...

7. ...doesn’t mean to criticize households with earnings of $22,314, the 2010 poverty level for a family of four, but finds that the nation believes too much is being spent on welfare.

8. ... 71 percent believe too many are receiving federal welfare benefits and would like to see official measures of poverty tightened...

9. The president, however, is going the other way and even reviving plans to help homeowners refinance their mortgages, an idea similar to a stimulus-era idea that in part led to the Tea Party movement.

10. ...the administration’s spending on means-tested programs like food stamps, public housing assistance, weatherization spending and others “is slated to continue growing dramatically even after the recession comes to an end.”
Feds:


Let the hand-wringing begin!

and it doesn't end there, according to the census ( 2009); 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money.

Warren Kozak: The Myth of the Starving Americans - WSJ.com



remembering too, that hunger is relative, it even goes further, consider; in Wisconsin over 370,000 children receive free lunches at school, however, less than 40k are condidered poverty line poor.......so who eats the other 300k some odd lunches?

Middle class kids, thats who. AND, when applying for federal aid for such prgms what number do you think they use? Ipso facto they provide free lunches to 370k, so thats what the ask for to be funded and, that too becomes a statistic added to the numbers justifying spending over 100 BILLION dollars on these prgms......


Oh and do you know that the lobby grp. for fast foods chains is trying to get congress to buy off on allowing them to accept EBT? We'l see were that goes.
Ratmuffin, now there's an unbiased source! :cuckoo:
A 20 year old VCR, yeah that's a sure sign of wealth! :lol:
An old used jalopy is another sign of living high on the hog.
An old Atari 2600 video game is yet another sign of the poor living too well.

If it wasn't for all these wealthy poor people the poor rich people would be wealthy.

are you sure you quoted the right post? what is a ratmuffin btw?
 
Yeah I knew it was a matter of time before someone dusted off that old chestnut. Americans arent poor because other people in other countries are poorer is one I hope the GOP runs with. \

Except that that isn't the argument at all.
I understand how your straw argument would make you feel better about yourself, that you hadn't been used by the Leftist media-masters....but you have been....big time.


Assume arguendo that post #20 is true...and it is sourced....then the 'poor' about whom you are so concerned....are able to live in the United States on the equivalent of almost $90,000!

Again, from that post: "So...to summarize the above, the $22,314, when combined with the means-tested in-kind and transfers from government ($67,200) means that our 'poor' family of four has an equivalent income of $89,514."

Realize that that is almost twice what the average working family that pays the taxes that make that $90k possible is making???

Feel like a real jerk now, don't you?


No because your post is a justification of why you believe the poor aint "really poor". And anytime you throw in Africa on a discussion about Americas poor...yeah, you are comparing one to the other to say American poor aint bad.

1. "...anytime you throw in Africa..."
I don't believe that I have mentioned Africa.
But I understand your prob....you have all that smoke still in your eyes.

2. "...you are comparing one to the other ...."
Of course one must compare one person's lot to another's...that is the provenance of terms like 'poor.'

3. No, really...how dumb do you feel in that the Left media-masters have convinced you that $90,000 is poor? 'Fess up.

I mean, really.


Unless you'd like to argue that the government doesn't support the 'poor' to the tune of about 80% of their income in addition to any earnings.
So...would you?
I thought not.

4. Your post is an example of why, for conservatives, data informs policy.
For liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

But, the good news: based on the efforts you've put into your post, I'm
going to award you the Megan McCain ‘Emoticon of Privacy’ award.

Congrats.
 
and it doesn't end there, according to the census ( 2009); 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money.

Warren Kozak: The Myth of the Starving Americans - WSJ.com



remembering too, that hunger is relative, it even goes further, consider; in Wisconsin over 370,000 children receive free lunches at school, however, less than 40k are condidered poverty line poor.......so who eats the other 300k some odd lunches?

Middle class kids, thats who. AND, when applying for federal aid for such prgms what number do you think they use? Ipso facto they provide free lunches to 370k, so thats what the ask for to be funded and, that too becomes a statistic added to the numbers justifying spending over 100 BILLION dollars on these prgms......


Oh and do you know that the lobby grp. for fast foods chains is trying to get congress to buy off on allowing them to accept EBT? We'l see were that goes.
Ratmuffin, now there's an unbiased source! :cuckoo:
A 20 year old VCR, yeah that's a sure sign of wealth! :lol:
An old used jalopy is another sign of living high on the hog.
An old Atari 2600 video game is yet another sign of the poor living too well.

If it wasn't for all these wealthy poor people the poor rich people would be wealthy.

are you sure you quoted the right post? what is a ratmuffin btw?

Be patient, Traj...our friend BeetsAndSpinach is usually genuflecting at the alter of the Godfather of Talk Radio at this time...
...this is his "Hour of Obeisance."


Or...he's dining on ratmuffins again.
 
"...increasing amounts of the nation's wealth going to the richest few, while the rest live on scraps."

There is no quintile that remains static.

Irrelevant. What is being discussed here is how much of the nation's wealth is going to the top compared to everyone else. That observation is completely unaffected by who comprises the specific membership of that top elite, and whether they are the same today as they were yesterday or will be tomorrow.

Everything else you posted here is merely an elaboration on that red herring, which, like the OP itself, addresses a point that has not been raised, while ignoring all those that have.
 
"...increasing amounts of the nation's wealth going to the richest few, while the rest live on scraps."

There is no quintile that remains static.

Irrelevant. What is being discussed here is how much of the nation's wealth is going to the top compared to everyone else. That observation is completely unaffected by who comprises the specific membership of that top elite, and whether they are the same today as they were yesterday or will be tomorrow.

Everything else you posted here is merely an elaboration on that red herring, which, like the OP itself, addresses a point that has not been raised, while ignoring all those that have.

1. Speaking of ignore....you didn't notice that incomes have increased, total remuneration has increased, consumerism has increased, standard of living has increases, net worth has increased?

Hey...and your hand-wringing has increased! Coincidence? Hardly.

2. The 'nation's wealth is going to' the most productive. Period.
As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

3. In a free market, incomes and wealth are obtained through the sum of innumerable voluntary exchanges. As Robert Nozick calls it, “capitalist acts between consenting adults.”

a. Nozick’s example: ““Now suppose that Wilt Chamberlain is greatly in demand by basketball teams, being a great gate attraction…He signs the following sort of contract with a team: In each home game, twenty-five cents from the price of each ticket of admission goes to him…The season starts, and people cheerfully attend his team’s games; they buy their tickets, each time dropping a separate twenty-five cents of their admission price into a special box with Chamberlain’s name on it. They are excited about seeing him play; it is worth the total admission price to them. Let us suppose that in one season one million persons attend his home games, and Wilt Chamberlain winds up with $250,000, a much larger sum than the average income and larger even than anyone else has. Is he entitled to this income? Is this new distribution unjust?”

b. So, then, what should a government do as far as mandating ‘fairness”? “The exercise of state power is not the action of a separate entity with moral rights greater than those of individual persons, rights to use force against persons for reasons that would not justify the use of force by individuals or groups of individuals per se…individual rights and duties are the basis of what governments may and should do.” Thomas Nagel, “Other Minds: Critical Essays, 1969-1994,” p. 141.

Wow...look at this free education you're getting here!

4. Now, go have that live chicken and slither back into whatever primordial ooze you've escaped from, or wherever you komodo-things come from.
 
1. Speaking of ignore....you didn't notice that incomes have increased, total remuneration has increased, consumerism has increased, standard of living has increases, net worth has increased?

Of course I did. Did you, perchance, notice that there are numbers between zero and infinity? And that they are not all equal to each other?

The 'nation's wealth is going to' the most productive.

The nation's wealth is going disproportionately to the owner class, who are paid on the basis of their ownership, not their work. I would need to see your reasoning or proof that these people constitute the "most productive," starting with an explanation of what that even means, which is certainly not obvious.

In a free market, incomes and wealth are obtained through the sum of innumerable voluntary exchanges.

Plus quite a few involuntary ones; but please, let's get away from the ivory tower of free-market academic theory and focus on the real world.

So, then, what should a government do as far as mandating ‘fairness”?

That involves where it sets tax policy, trade policy, labor policy, and immigration policy, and there are a lot of things that can tilt things so as to keep wages up or to hold them down. If you really wish to discuss this instead of playing these silly verbal games, I'll do so, but so far I see a complete lack of sincerity on your part that makes me reluctant to start the ball rolling myself.
 
Except that that isn't the argument at all.
I understand how your straw argument would make you feel better about yourself, that you hadn't been used by the Leftist media-masters....but you have been....big time.


Assume arguendo that post #20 is true...and it is sourced....then the 'poor' about whom you are so concerned....are able to live in the United States on the equivalent of almost $90,000!

Again, from that post: "So...to summarize the above, the $22,314, when combined with the means-tested in-kind and transfers from government ($67,200) means that our 'poor' family of four has an equivalent income of $89,514."

Realize that that is almost twice what the average working family that pays the taxes that make that $90k possible is making???

Feel like a real jerk now, don't you?


No because your post is a justification of why you believe the poor aint "really poor". And anytime you throw in Africa on a discussion about Americas poor...yeah, you are comparing one to the other to say American poor aint bad.
On scale? Americans aren't.

On Scale I'm Superman...On Scale you are a Genius...
 
"...increasing amounts of the nation's wealth going to the richest few, while the rest live on scraps."

There is no quintile that remains static.

Irrelevant. What is being discussed here is how much of the nation's wealth is going to the top compared to everyone else. That observation is completely unaffected by who comprises the specific membership of that top elite, and whether they are the same today as they were yesterday or will be tomorrow.

Everything else you posted here is merely an elaboration on that red herring, which, like the OP itself, addresses a point that has not been raised, while ignoring all those that have.

jesus what hogwash, critical thinking, try it some time.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mal
Except that that isn't the argument at all.
I understand how your straw argument would make you feel better about yourself, that you hadn't been used by the Leftist media-masters....but you have been....big time.


Assume arguendo that post #20 is true...and it is sourced....then the 'poor' about whom you are so concerned....are able to live in the United States on the equivalent of almost $90,000!

Again, from that post: "So...to summarize the above, the $22,314, when combined with the means-tested in-kind and transfers from government ($67,200) means that our 'poor' family of four has an equivalent income of $89,514."

Realize that that is almost twice what the average working family that pays the taxes that make that $90k possible is making???

Feel like a real jerk now, don't you?


No because your post is a justification of why you believe the poor aint "really poor". And anytime you throw in Africa on a discussion about Americas poor...yeah, you are comparing one to the other to say American poor aint bad.

1. "...anytime you throw in Africa..."
I don't believe that I have mentioned Africa.
But I understand your prob....you have all that smoke still in your eyes.

You did not, but others like The T does and does so often...That wasnt directed toward you so no need to cry little one

2. "...you are comparing one to the other ...."
Of course one must compare one person's lot to another's...that is the provenance of terms like 'poor.'

From the answer above citing Africa...Comparing Africa poor with US poor is apples and oranges. The only reason to bring up another country is to shift the conversation from "what does it mean to be poor in America?" to "Americans arent poor...look! They have Refrigerators!"

3. No, really...how dumb do you feel in that the Left media-masters have convinced you that $90,000 is poor? 'Fess up.

Was this to me? Because I never said anything like that...Thou does Strawman too much

I mean, really.


Unless you'd like to argue that the government doesn't support the 'poor' to the tune of about 80% of their income in addition to any earnings.
So...would you?
I thought not.

Again, I never said anything about that. You arent going to try to make me defend a point I never made

4. Your post is an example of why, for conservatives, data informs policy.
For liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

But, the good news: based on the efforts you've put into your post, I'm
going to award you the Megan McCain ‘Emoticon of Privacy’ award.

Congrats.

I dont know what the fuck you are on but it's speed mixed with something wicked. :confused:
 
The super wealthy get the most welfare.

Trillions of dollars worth.

This, and laugh away as the rest of us squabble over the crumbs. While politicians spread their legs for [not always] the highest bidders.

Well, we got TV and beer--and N00T and Mittens.

:dance:
 
Originally Posted by PoliticalChic 1. "As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else.

2. A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.
and it doesn't end there, according to the census ( 2009); 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money.

Warren Kozak: The Myth of the Starving Americans - WSJ.com



remembering too, that hunger is relative, it even goes further, consider; in Wisconsin over 370,000 children receive free lunches at school, however, less than 40k are condidered poverty line poor.......so who eats the other 300k some odd lunches?

Middle class kids, thats who. AND, when applying for federal aid for such prgms what number do you think they use? Ipso facto they provide free lunches to 370k, so thats what the ask for to be funded and, that too becomes a statistic added to the numbers justifying spending over 100 BILLION dollars on these prgms......


Oh and do you know that the lobby grp. for fast foods chains is trying to get congress to buy off on allowing them to accept EBT? We'l see were that goes.
Ratmuffin, now there's an unbiased source! :cuckoo:
A 20 year old VCR, yeah that's a sure sign of wealth! :lol:
An old used jalopy is another sign of living high on the hog.
An old Atari 2600 video game is yet another sign of the poor living too well.

If it wasn't for all these wealthy poor people the poor rich people would be wealthy.

are you sure you quoted the right post? what is a ratmuffin btw?
This post is a testament to the complete ignorance of the pompous CON$ who act like they are smarter than everyone else. I even highlighted Scott Ratmuffin's name in red in my post, and this stupid twit STILL could not figure it out! What a moron!!! :rofl::lmao:
 

Forum List

Back
Top