More Proof: The Left Has Been Hoodwinked

[PoliticalChic]

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



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!"



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.

How's this for a definition of poverty...No home, no heat, no food.


So....do we have poverty in America......or simply a cottage industry that makes use of soft hearted simps, referred to by Lenin as 'usueful idiots.'
Said simps provide the power to the Left, which they use to destroy the traditional values that have led so many toward the door marked "Poverty."

And that door leads to both economic, as well as social, poverty.

...and I mean that in the kindest way.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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



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!"



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



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.

How's this for a definition of poverty...No home, no heat, no food.


So....do we have poverty in America......or simply a cottage industry that makes use of soft hearted simps, referred to by Lenin as 'usueful idiots.'
Said simps provide the power to the Left, which they use to destroy the traditional values that have led so many toward the door marked "Poverty."

And that door leads to both economic, as well as social, poverty.

...and I mean that in the kindest way.

Get over yourself...That is your definition of Poverty. Congrats on having an asshole like everyone else. Your definition of poverty means shit. But of course you're so arrogant that you believe you get a say so about what other people see as poor and what they should do. Go get a dog for christs sakes

 

[PoliticalChic]

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



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!"



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



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



I dont know what the fuck you are on but it's speed mixed with something wicked.

How's this for a definition of poverty...No home, no heat, no food.


So....do we have poverty in America......or simply a cottage industry that makes use of soft hearted simps, referred to by Lenin as 'usueful idiots.'
Said simps provide the power to the Left, which they use to destroy the traditional values that have led so many toward the door marked "Poverty."

And that door leads to both economic, as well as social, poverty.

...and I mean that in the kindest way.

Get over yourself...That is your definition of Poverty. Congrats on having an asshole like everyone else. Your definition of poverty means shit. But of course you're so arrogant that you believe you get a say so about what other people see as poor and what they should do. Go get a dog for christs sakes

Oooooo....did I hit a nerve? Seems so from the precipitous drop in the level of your language.

Let's compare our definitions.
1. Mine: poverty = no home, no heat, no food.

2. The definition that you've been tricked into accepting: poor means having a older Jacuzzi.

3."But of course you're so arrogant that you believe you get a say so about what other people see as poor...."
Pretty much.
Probably because I believe that the United States should be guided by the US Constitution.


4. You know, I generally believe that other folks know what I know, and have the ability to judge reality...as I do.

But then I run into folks like you.
You know next to nothing, and the only ability you have is to be led.

5. When you move on from junior high school you'll learn that any informed debate begins with a definition of terms.
Try...ignore the headaches.

 

[edthecynic]

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



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!"



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



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.

How's this for a definition of poverty...No home, no heat, no food.


So....do we have poverty in America......or simply a cottage industry that makes use of soft hearted simps, referred to by Lenin as 'usueful idiots.'
Said simps provide the power to the Left, which they use to destroy the traditional values that have led so many toward the door marked "Poverty."

And that door leads to both economic, as well as social, poverty.

...and I mean that in the kindest way.

No home, no heat, no food is destitution, the goal of CON$ervatism for America, not poverty.

And your hero Lenin never used the term "useful idiot." But as a pompous know-it-all you already knew that but just love making a fool of yourself.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

More Proof: The Left Has Been Hoodwinked

Let the hand-wringing begin!

Pooooooooooooooor.....

....KOCHsuckers!!

​

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

1. Welcome to the "Poikilothermic Remediation Hour"!


"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."


That a joke you are, slippery! The 'owner class'??
Who's your writer, Sam webb???


2. Income and wealth inequality…or demographics. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.

The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

c. Other pertinent factors include age and experience of head of household, educational differences, the rise of working women, which increased the number of two-earner families, increased in college educated workers, percent of immigrants in the workforce, which also give the impression of inequality.


OMG! You've tricked me into giving you another free lesson in economics!!!

Curses!

Hey...would this be considered 'piling on'?

3. Let's review the 'shrinking middle class' (giggle)... 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

a. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.” Great American Dream Machine

Thus, the middle class was growing richer, and moving up, rather than shrinking. Further, what is the basis for decrying workers having higher incomes, or, to put it another way, how can same be harmful to other workers with ‘less-skilled’ jobs?

b.”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. “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide - New York Times


Owner class????
"... the country has gone a long way toward an appearance of classlessness."


Wanna go get a tissue to wipe the egg off your snout?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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



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!"



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



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

I dont know what the fuck you are on but it's speed mixed with something wicked.

How's this for a definition of poverty...No home, no heat, no food.


So....do we have poverty in America......or simply a cottage industry that makes use of soft hearted simps, referred to by Lenin as 'usueful idiots.'
Said simps provide the power to the Left, which they use to destroy the traditional values that have led so many toward the door marked "Poverty."

And that door leads to both economic, as well as social, poverty.

...and I mean that in the kindest way.

No home, no heat, no food is destitution, the goal of CON$ervatism for America, not poverty.

And your hero Lenin never used the term "useful idiot." But as a pompous know-it-all you already knew that but just love making a fool of yourself.

Let's be clear, Beets....what is your definition of 'poverty'?

Is it that not enough of the 'poor' have a Jacuzzi?

Or not having more than one refrigerator?

Or just admit you have no clue, and merely accept what the Left media-masters tell you it is.

 

[Dragon]

As always I'm going to snip anything that constitutes empty rhetoric without cognitive content, which in this case is most of the post, although not quite all of it.

Income and wealth inequality…or demographics. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth

Comparing the top fifth to the bottom fifth, which includes unemployed people and the disabled, naturally skews the data. What you properly need to do is to compare it to the second or third quintile, not the bottom one. I think you will find that the comparison tilts the other way if you do that.

What I implied above is not that the rich don't work but that the bulk of their income (those truly at the top) doesn't come from work in the same way that most people's does. It comes from return on their investments. That's why I call them the "owner class": they make money because of what they own more than what they do. Even when they also work, their labor is almost an afterthought in terms of where their money comes from.

percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003

Not if you use constant dollars it didn't.

Nothing else in your post is worth responding to.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How's this for a definition of poverty...No home, no heat, no food.


So....do we have poverty in America......or simply a cottage industry that makes use of soft hearted simps, referred to by Lenin as 'usueful idiots.'
Said simps provide the power to the Left, which they use to destroy the traditional values that have led so many toward the door marked "Poverty."

And that door leads to both economic, as well as social, poverty.

...and I mean that in the kindest way.

Get over yourself...That is your definition of Poverty. Congrats on having an asshole like everyone else. Your definition of poverty means shit. But of course you're so arrogant that you believe you get a say so about what other people see as poor and what they should do. Go get a dog for christs sakes

Oooooo....did I hit a nerve? Seems so from the precipitous drop in the level of your language.

Let's compare our definitions.
1. Mine: poverty = no home, no heat, no food.

2. The definition that you've been tricked into accepting: poor means having a older Jacuzzi.

Wheres your proof or are these more empty accusations?

3."But of course you're so arrogant that you believe you get a say so about what other people see as poor...."
Pretty much.
Probably because I believe that the United States should be guided by the US Constitution.

Your definition has nothing to do with the constitution, nice dodge

4. You know, I generally believe that other folks know what I know, and have the ability to judge reality...as I do.

But then I run into folks like you.
You know next to nothing, and the only ability you have is to be led.

Reality is debating what someone says, unlike you who just accuse others of something then asks them to defend what you just made up.

5. When you move on from junior high school you'll learn that any informed debate begins with a definition of terms.
Try...ignore the headaches.

Not YOUR definition of a word...If you are going to pretend to be fair at LEAST post the actual definition

Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[2] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in relative poverty.[3] In 2000, the poverty rate for individuals was 12.2% and for families was 9.3%.[4]

pov·er·ty/ˈpävərtē/
Noun:

The state of being extremely poor.
The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount.

Stop being dumb and pretending you arent

 

[PoliticalChic]

As always I'm going to snip anything that constitutes empty rhetoric without cognitive content, which in this case is most of the post, although not quite all of it.

Income and wealth inequality…or demographics. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth

Comparing the top fifth to the bottom fifth, which includes unemployed people and the disabled, naturally skews the data. What you properly need to do is to compare it to the second or third quintile, not the bottom one. I think you will find that the comparison tilts the other way if you do that.

What I implied above is not that the rich don't work but that the bulk of their income (those truly at the top) doesn't come from work in the same way that most people's does. It comes from return on their investments. That's why I call them the "owner class": they make money because of what they own more than what they do. Even when they also work, their labor is almost an afterthought in terms of where their money comes from.

percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003

Not if you use constant dollars it didn't.

Nothing else in your post is worth responding to.

1. "Nothing else in your post is worth responding to."
Ending a sentence with a preposition is a no-no.
To translate your attempt at obfuscation "I can't dispute much of your post....(sob)...'
Isn't that true?

2. "Not if you use constant dollars it didn't."
Sure is.

3. "What I implied above is not that the rich don't work but that the bulk of their income (those truly at the top) doesn't come from work in the same way that most people's does. It comes from return on their investments."
More nonsense and word-salad.

4. First, the top 1% is hardly millionaires and billionaires...
To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!

So, if I may hypothesize....a husband and wife working for the police department of NYC and putting in available overtime, each earning $170k make it into the "the top 1%"....
....hardly "It comes from return on their investments."

This for Nassau, LI police: "The average salary of a sworn police officer in Nassau last year was $107,000.... incentives led to at least six retirees earning more than $700,000 last year,..The average payout for a retiring police officer is nearly $300,000, and for a detective it is $345,000, ."
High Police Pay Fuels Nassau Squeeze - WSJ.com

So...you really don't have the slightest knowledge of the subject, do you, you slanderous snake....
...you function based on bias and 'feeling.'

5. The biggest single group of professionals in the top one percent is actually doctors, who make up 16 percent of that subset. Lawyers, 9% of 'em.
The 1 Percent Are Not All Wall Streeters?But Lots of Them Are Bosses - Business - GOOD

6. David Carr of The New York Times would also like to offer up his bosses as targets for the mass uprising, pointing out in his column today that media executives are some of the worst offenders when it comes to CEOs who reap multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes by slashing budgets and laying off rank-and-file workers. Go ahead and add them to the list.
So those who want to direct their anger at the winners in the income inequality sweepstakes might want to look beyond the lower of half of Manhattan. There's plenty of other folks closer to home that you might want to have a word with. Where Does the Top 1% Really Work? - National - The Atlantic Wire


If I were a better person I wouldn't love slapping you around so much....but everybody should have a hobby.


My suggestion: stop these empty posts, and realize that your time would be far better spent learning something constructive, such as how
to fold a fitted sheet.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

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
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Your point about about people's height and weight is mute. The average American in the 1940's was smaller than today's average American.

Here's an example which only covers the difference between the height of a 15 year olld boy in 1966 and what the average height was in 2002.

In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
Americans Getting Taller, Bigger, Fatter, Says CDC

So a 15 year old's average height grew almost one inch during a 36 year span and you're using the height increase during a 67 year span.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Your point about about people's height and weight is mute. The average American in the 1940's was smaller than today's average American.

Here's an example which only covers the difference between the height of a 15 year olld boy in 1966 and what the average height was in 2002.

In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
Americans Getting Taller, Bigger, Fatter, Says CDC

So a 15 year old's average height grew almost one inch during a 36 year span and you're using the height increase during a 67 year span.

So, nourishment of the 'poor' is due to....what?....osmosis?

 

[kiwiman127]

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
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Your point about about people's height and weight is mute. The average American in the 1940's was smaller than today's average American.

Here's an example which only covers the difference between the height of a 15 year olld boy in 1966 and what the average height was in 2002.

In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
Americans Getting Taller, Bigger, Fatter, Says CDC

So a 15 year old's average height grew almost one inch during a 36 year span and you're using the height increase during a 67 year span.

So, nourishment of the 'poor' is due to....what?....osmosis?

So you love to produce your own facts but when some else posts real facts, you ignore them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your point about about people's height and weight is mute. The average American in the 1940's was smaller than today's average American.

Here's an example which only covers the difference between the height of a 15 year olld boy in 1966 and what the average height was in 2002.

In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
Americans Getting Taller, Bigger, Fatter, Says CDC

So a 15 year old's average height grew almost one inch during a 36 year span and you're using the height increase during a 67 year span.

So, nourishment of the 'poor' is due to....what?....osmosis?

So you love to produce your own facts but when some else posts real facts, you ignore them.

1. I don't produce my own facts.

2. It seems that you don't realize that your post establishes the verisimilitude of my premise: the 'poor' are not any worse off than the 'rich.'

On what raw materials is the 'poor' youth growing? Who is paying for same. How so?
Get it now?

3. What bearing does you post have? A very important one. Dr. Thomas Sowell has pointed out, in "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," that many of the Left suffer from short term (Stage One) thinking....and don't consider the result of their decisions.

Thus, you fail to realize that the growth attributed to the 'average' American proves my point.


Carry on.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So I guess you are just going to ignore the real definition of poor and go with the notion someone has to be homeless, heatless and foodless before they can be described as poor? This is why its easy to believe yourself when you are the creator of the facts. Reality be dammed

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, PoliticalChic did get info from the Heritage Foundation so she must be right!

Aren't they the ones who helped write up Paul Ryan's budget plan, only to find out that their numbers were fantasy and well off the mark? Yep.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So I guess you are just going to ignore the real definition of poor and go with the notion someone has to be homeless, heatless and foodless before they can be described as poor? This is why its easy to believe yourself when you are the creator of the facts. Reality be dammed

1. " the real definition of poor..."
And what is that?

2. As a born and bred follower, I'm certain that you have no idea as to the basis of
the declaration.
No, you will simply accept the view of Big Brother.

3. Now...don't be shocked: I'm going to provide something to which you have rarely been exposes....education.
"'Poverty’ may be illusory. It exists in the context in which we discuss it, based on a dollar figure, …the government “developed poverty thresholds. based on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA. Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food, then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need. Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963….Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau updates the poverty threshold to account for inflation.”
How We Measure Poverty
How We Measure Poverty - Oregon Center for Public Policy

a. Now..a mere human designed the system, and definition...so don't be so afraid of questioning it.

b. It is false. Today food costs have dropped to less than one seventh, not one third.

c. The Left constantly tries to tell folks like you that things are terrible....even the calculation of inflation is bogus.

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, PoliticalChic did get info from the Heritage Foundation so she must be right!

Aren't they the ones who helped write up Paul Ryan's budget plan, only to find out that their numbers were fantasy and well off the mark? Yep.

So....now that you can't dispute the facts, drop right back into the source?

Wise up.
You're being taken for a simpleton.

You know the old saw about being raised like a mushroom? Yup.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Go to dictionary.com or wikepedia for the definition. Stop purposfully being ignorant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go to dictionary.com or wikepedia for the definition. Stop purposfully being ignorant.

pov·er·ty/ˈpävərtē/
Noun:
The state of being extremely poor.
The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount.

Subjective or objective? What, again, is the sufficient amount?
Is $90,000 sufficient?

poor/po͝or/
Adjective:
Lacking enough money to live comfortably in a society.

Can one live comfortably on $90,000?
No?

So....which one of the definitions includes the following....

Do poor folks have a clothes dryer? 79% do.
Do poor folks have a clothes washer? 83% do.
Do poor folks have a refrigerator? All of them do.
Do poor folks have a computer? 68% do.
Do poor folks have internet service? 60% do.
Do poor folks have a dishwasher? 58% do.
Do poor folks have a Jacuzzi? Only 6% of the poor do.


And, it seems, are able to pay the electric bill for same.

Still not getting the picture?

Check it out: Poverty in America - AskHeritage

When the Left tells you that day is night, I know you'll buy it like it was on sale.