Understanding the wealth of the poor

Life was much better for black people in the 50s than today.

^That right there is all we need to know. You should make that the Republican rallying cry to recruit blacks: Vote for us and we'll make it like 1950 all over again!

Of course no one could restore the integrity of the black community. They don't want it. They would rather have an illegitimacy rate of 80%, black men spending their most productive years committing crimes or being in prison. Black people would rather have their young murdering grandma for her social security check to use for crack. They don't mind children calling their mothers ho's. Most times that's what they are anyway. They have had a couple of generations to perfect victimhood. They got civil rights, but really lost their integrity as a people, individually and collectively. I remember 1950 and 1960. I remember black people as suffering but capable of honor. That's gone. It's true, blacks did not have it better in 1950. They were simply better people. Now their communities and families are destroyed. There is no safe haven even in their own homes. They lost that and life is much worse for black people today than it was in the 50s.

Was it a good trade off?

I remember the days of the civil rights movement. I remember them quite well. The anticipation was that blacks would have their rights as human beings restored to them and USE that for their benefit. No one expected the rallying cry of civil rights used to justify illegitimate births, robbery, murder and drug addiction.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel
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

As a side note, birth control pills have been available unrestricted to the public since 1960.
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.
We've already seen The Movie.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A]Theology of Monty Python - Every Sperm is Sacred - YouTube[/ame]

Careful.....we DO have plagiarism-laws.....​
 
Yeah I'd say the poor aren't doing badly in this country.

Most of em don't pay any Fed income taxes yet they enyoy the largess of those of us that do.

They also have no need to change their life style. I mean why should they?? A free ride is much better than having to pay for anything.
 
Yeah I'd say the poor aren't doing badly in this country.

Most of em don't pay any Fed income taxes yet they enyoy the largess of those of us that do.

They also have no need to change their life style. I mean why should they?? A free ride is much better than having to pay for anything.

Why should they change you can make decent money and still qualify for federal assistance.

Its the Obama plan, where everyone should be on food stamps.
 
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..

Nobody cares, quit your whining.
Oh you want me to stop whining but you can go on for days and days how it isnt fair you not getting your fair share.. :cuckoo:
 
Well then....all is well. I'm sure the President will appreciate your vote of confidence in his economic plan.

Because it continues programs that have been proven obvious failures?
oooooooooooooooooooo.....a "conservative" with a......


.....huh??

handjob.gif
 
As a side note, birth control pills have been available unrestricted to the public since 1960.
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.

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.
.....A concept, LOST, on most.....

 
Poverty should never be comfortable. When we pay people to be poor, we will have only more poor. They take it from a temporary circumstance into a lifestyle choice.
 
Yeah I'd say the poor aren't doing badly in this country.

Most of em don't pay any Fed income taxes yet they enyoy the largess of those of us that do.

They also have no need to change their life style. I mean why should they?? A free ride is much better than having to pay for anything.

Do you support ending all programs that aid the poor/low income Americans?

Will they then magically find prosperity somewhere? Or will they be more like the poor in the third world, in places like Africa, like the poor in India, or various other places where the government and those who are better off do little or nothing on behalf of the poor?

How does this program of neglect work exactly to make things better?
 
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.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

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, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.
Are we supposed to accept all these facts and figures at face value or do you actually have a creditable source?
 
Last edited:
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).

I'm thinkin' you can find most "conservative"-sources.....

 
Poverty should never be comfortable. When we pay people to be poor, we will have only more poor. They take it from a temporary circumstance into a lifestyle choice.

Is that why there are no poor people in the Sudan, for example? Because the government doesn't help them,

and the 'discomfort' of being really really really poor causes them to leap as if by magic right out of poverty?

Conservative philosophy truly does want an American underclass of extreme poverty. They prove it here time after time.
 
Yeah I'd say the poor aren't doing badly in this country.

Most of em don't pay any Fed income taxes yet they enyoy the largess of those of us that do.

They also have no need to change their life style. I mean why should they?? A free ride is much better than having to pay for anything.

Do you support ending all programs that aid the poor/low income Americans?

Will they then magically find prosperity somewhere? Or will they be more like the poor in the third world, in places like Africa, like the poor in India, or various other places where the government and those who are better off do little or nothing on behalf of the poor?

How does this program of neglect work exactly to make things better?

During the Depression there were no welfare programs as there are today. Did we become like Africa or India?

Americans are the most generous people in the world. We give more to charity than any other people. Partly because many of our rich were once poor themselves. End governmental programs. Stop paying people to be poor. Stop SSI for alcoholics and drug addicts. They grow to consider alcoholism and drug addiction as their means of making a living.
 
This thread just confirms what I've said many times before -

Conservatives are pissed off because America's poor just aren't poor enough.

Did you come to that conclusion before or after hitting that crack pipe tough?

It's a fact. You can read it right in this thread, well, YOU can't read it in this thread, being barely literate,

but the rest of us can.
 
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.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

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, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

This really puts the "poor" in proper perspective. Comparing our poor to other countries is an eye opener for most.
Yeah......'cause we all live IN other countries.

handjob.gif
 
As a side note, birth control pills have been available unrestricted to the public since 1960.
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.

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....

There were NOT fewer deductions back then. There were many more and they were broad. There was no AMT, losses from one company could be used to reduce income in another, offshore tax havens were common and widespread.
 

Forum List

Back
Top