Understanding the wealth of the poor

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Brutus, Oct 17, 2011.

  1. Brutus
    Offline

    Brutus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,432
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +64
    Link for Cut and Paste: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...or-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america


    Federal state and local spending on the poor totals $6 trillion a year, every year, year in and year out; apparently forever. This means that every year the government spends, on the poor, 6 times what the the top 400 Americans have been able to accumulate over many generations. Or, not to confuse liberals, this means the poor have, in effect, a net wealth of $100 trillion in order that the government can generate $6 trillion yearly from it in welfare payments of various sorts for the poor. $100 trillion is far more than $1.5 trillion( the net worth of the top 400 Americans).


    And lets not forget that America's poor are rich in other ways beyond what liberal welfare provides:

    The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

    46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

    80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

    Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

    The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)


    cut short per usmb copyright rules~Care
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
  2. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,259
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,041
    Most of the poor today doesnt understand what its like to be truly poor. I grew up poor. I know what its like. My parents had 6 kids ( before birth control pills or abortion for your left wingers) and we lived in a 2 bedroom house that my grandmother gave to my mom. We had no hot water and had to boil our water to take a bath or wash dishes. We had no working toilet and my mom had to plunge and pour bleach water down the toilet to flush it. In the winter our house was cold and in the summer it was hot . No AC there. We got our first TV in the late 70s only because a friend gave us one. We had one used very old car that was always broke down to transport us 6 kids anywhere. We walked to church every sunday and walked to school until they decided to bus us. I laugh at most of the poor these days and that complain how much they dont have. They have cars and better housing that I ever would dream of. The house I am living in now , when I was younger I would have considered it to be a rich persons house even though we are very middle class..
     
  3. Utilitarian
    Offline

    Utilitarian co-Cain Manager

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    194
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +14
    As a side note, birth control pills have been available unrestricted to the public since 1960.
     
  4. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,259
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,041
    Point taken , but my parents were to poor to afford birth control .. Not like today when you can get medical.. Plus my father was Catholic back then .. Just saying people today have it good compared to back then.
     
  5. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,639
    Thanks Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,445
    Well then....all is well. I'm sure the President will appreciate your vote of confidence in his economic plan.
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    Because it continues programs that have been proven obvious failures?
     
  7. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    :eusa_think:
     
  8. Utilitarian
    Offline

    Utilitarian co-Cain Manager

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    194
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +14
    Correction... I forgot the pill was still illegal in 8 states until around 1965. I can't remember if Georgia was one of them or not.

    As for comparing now and then, I guess it depends on how you measure quality of life.

    There are more social programs today than there were back in the 50s, but then again, the economy was moving in a positive direction back then. You could get a decent job without even a college degree, and wages were growing much faster than inflation back then.

    Housing/rent was also much cheaper, even when measured as a percentage of income.

    So while people didn't have as much "stuff" back then, getting the bare essentials was much more affordable. The middle class was growing rather than shrinking.

    And despite all this, the wealthy paid a much higher percentage in income taxes....

    There were fewer deductions back then too.

    Granted, if you were black.... life wasn't so nice....
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
  9. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    I think he meant the spending continued forever, not the actual number, which only gets bigger.
     
  10. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    Do you have a source for any of this? The figure of $6 trillion seems ridiculously high compared to the size of US GDP, indeed higher than total public sector expenditures. I'm also curious as to how you arrive at the round figure of $100 trillion. And I can't find any of your facts on the census website (they may be there, but I can't find them).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page