Mitt Romney: This is why the GOP believes in family values

[PoliticalChic]

If a person graduates high school, gets a job, gets married and then has a child; the odds he will be poor is two percent. If those factors are not in place, it is 76 percent!

You know what I find most interesting about this information?

It makes many of the Leftists in the forum angry to have it revealed and discussed.

It's horseshit, that's why. Most people WITH JOBS aren't poor.

Bulletin: most of the folks listed in the government stats as 'poor' aren't poor, either.

 

[boilermaker55]

Mitt Romney gave a speech at Liberty University. He cited a Brookings Institute study. If a person graduates high school, gets a job, gets married and then has a child; the odds he will be poor is two percent. If those factors are not in place, it is 76 percent!

So next time, Dems give you sheeot about pimping family values, tell them to stuff it. They are important and absolutely need to be a part of the political discourse.

You mean like all those rightwinger republicans that prove family values everyday.
2010–2012Thad Viers (R) the three term South Carolina state representative withdrew as a candidate for the US Congress in January 2012 after he had been arrested on charges of harassing a 28 year old woman described as an ex-girlfriend. He was released on a $5000 bond and subsequently withdrew from the race citing "personal reasons". In 2006, Viers had been charged with threatening to "beat up" a man who was dating his estranged wife; he pled no-contest in that case and paid a fine of $500.[1][2]
Herman Cain (2012 Republican presidential candidate) has been accused of sexual harassment by several women [3][4] including Sharon Bialek, Karen Kraushaar, and Ginger White.[5][6] Donna Donella also reported possible inappropriate behavior.[7] Eventually causing him to suspend his run for the presidential nomination.[8]
David Wu (D-OR) announced he will resign from the House of Representatives after being accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward a fundraiser's daughter became public. July 26, 2011[9]
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) The newly married Congressman admitted to sending sexually suggestive photos of himself to several women through his Twitter account.[10] He resigned on June 16.[11](2011)
Chris Lee, Representative (R-NY) Resigned hours after a news report that the married Congressman had sent a shirtless picture of himself flexing his muscles to a woman via Craigslist, along with flirtatious emails.[12] He did not use a pseudonym or a false email address, but relied on his congressional email for all communication. (2011)
Mark Souder, (R-IN) a staunch advocate of abstinence and family values,[13][14] resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted extramarital affair with a female staffer. Famously, he and she had made a public video in which they both extolled the virtues of sexual abstinence. (2010)[15][16][17]
Eric Massa (D-NY): Resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted groping and tickling of multiple male staffers. He later stated on Fox News that, "not only did I grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn't breathe," (2010)[18][19]
Republican National Committee fired administrator Allison Meyers for her role in allowing $52,000 to be spent for a fund raiser at Club Voyeur which included bondage and topless dancers, (2011) [20]
Tom Ganley (R-OH) and candidate for the US House of Representatives in 2010 was indicted on seven counts of sexual imposition with a woman he met at a Tea Party Rally.[21] Charges were dropped when the woman refused to continue action.The married father of three has one other sex charge pending.[22][23]
Then we can go back to the years of 2000-2009, do you really want to stand on your "family values' facade; I think not. So why don't you stuff it .

 

[boilermaker55]

Chip Pickering, (R-MS) On July 16, 2009 it was announced that his wife had filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against a woman with whom Chip allegedly had an affair.[24] The lawsuit claimed the adulterous relationship ruined the Pickerings' marriage and his political career. (2009) [25]
Samuel B. Kent, Federal District Judge in Texas Appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990. Accused of sexually harassing two female employees. He was impeached for abusing his authority and imprisoned for 33 months for obstruction of justice.[26] (2009)
John Ensign Senator (R-NV) Resigned his position as Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee on June 16, 2009, after admitting he had an affair with the wife of a close friend, both of whom were working on his campaign.[27] Under investigation, he then resigned his seat in Congress 20 months early. (2011) [28] In 1998, Senator Ensign had called for President Bill Clinton (D) to resign after admitting to sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky. (2009) [29]
John Edwards, Senator (D-NC) His 2008 presidential campaign was seriously undercut when he admitted to an extramarital affair with actress and film producer Rielle Hunter, which produced a child.[30] (see federal political scandals)
Vito Fossella, Representative (R-NY) Arrested for drunk driving. Under questioning, the married Congressman and father of three,admitted to an affair with Laura Fay that produced a daughter. (2008)[31]
Tim Mahoney, Representative (D-FL) was elected to the seat of Mark Foley, who had resigned following sexual harassment charges from his congressional interns. Mahoney ran on a campaign promise to make "a world that is safer, more moral." In October 2008, he admitted he placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her, saying, "You work at my pleasure." He then admitted to multiple other affairs.[32]
Randall L. Tobias, Deputy Secretary of State (R) and former "AIDS Czar" appointed by George W. Bush: Stated that U.S. funds should be denied to countries that permitted prostitution.[33] He resigned on April 27, 2007, after confirming that he had been a customer of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the DC Madam.[34]
David Vitter, Senator (R-LA): Took over former Congressman Robert Livingston's House seat in 1999, who resigned following revelations of an extramarital affair. At the time, Vitter stated: "I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that (Bill) Clinton should resign as well ..."[35] Vitters' name was then discovered in the address book of the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey. (2007)[36]
Larry Craig, Senator (R-ID) Pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minneapolis airport men's room in June 2007, on a charge of lewd conduct. Senator Craig had previously stated that "people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy." (2007)[37]
Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL) Resigned when accused of sending sexually explicit emails to underage male congressional pages. He was replaced by Tim Mahoney. (2006)[38]
Brian J. Doyle, (R) Deputy Press Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was indicted for seducing what he thought was a 14-year-old girl on the Internet; she was actually a sheriff's deputy. On November 17, 2006, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, 10 years of probation, and was registered as a sex offender.[39]
Jack Ryan, Senate candidate (R-IL) During sealed divorce proceedings in 2004, his wife Jeri Ryan accused him of forcing her to go to public sex clubs and described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[40] Ms. Ryan is better known as Seven of Nine from the TV show Star Trek: Voyager.[41]
Don Sherwood, Representative (R-PA) Failed to win re-election following revelations of a five-year extramarital affair with Cynthia Ore, who accused him of physically abusing her. (2004)[42]
David Dreier, Representative (R-CA): Voted against a number of gay rights proposals, but was outed concerning his relationship with his chief of staff. (2004)[43] He is featured in the 2009 documentary film Outrage.
Steven C. LaTourette, Representative (R-OH): Elected in 1994 and had voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. He himself had a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook, while he was married. He married Laptook after his divorce. (2003)[44]
Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC): The noted segregationist fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with a 15-year-old African American who was employed by the Thurmond family. (1925; made public in 2003)[45]
Jeff Gannon (R) a.k.a. James Dale Guckert, a.k.a. "Bulldog": Admitted to White House press conferences as a journalist without proper vetting, and was allowed to ask such sympathetic questions that The Daily Show referred to him as "Chip Rightwingenstein of the Bush Agenda Gazette." Records show he was admitted to the White House numerous times even when there were no press conferences. He later admitted to being a $200-an-hour gay prostitute who had advertised himself on a series of websites with names such as hotmilitarystud.com."[46] (2005)[47]
Ed Schrock (R-VA) announced he would abort his 2004 attempt for a third term in Congress after allegedly being caught on tape soliciting sex from a male prostitute after having aggressively opposed various gay-rights issues in Congress, such as same-sex marriage and gays in the military.[48]
Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA) His affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared. Her body was found a year later and in 2008, an ex-felon with no relation to Condit was charged with her murder. (2001)[49] Condit had often demanded that Bill Clinton "come clean" about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.[50]
[edit] 1990–1999

 

[BDBoop]

Chip Pickering, (R-MS) On July 16, 2009 it was announced that his wife had filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against a woman with whom Chip allegedly had an affair.[24] The lawsuit claimed the adulterous relationship ruined the Pickerings' marriage and his political career. (2009) [25]
Samuel B. Kent, Federal District Judge in Texas Appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990. Accused of sexually harassing two female employees. He was impeached for abusing his authority and imprisoned for 33 months for obstruction of justice.[26] (2009)
John Ensign Senator (R-NV) Resigned his position as Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee on June 16, 2009, after admitting he had an affair with the wife of a close friend, both of whom were working on his campaign.[27] Under investigation, he then resigned his seat in Congress 20 months early. (2011) [28] In 1998, Senator Ensign had called for President Bill Clinton (D) to resign after admitting to sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky. (2009) [29]
John Edwards, Senator (D-NC) His 2008 presidential campaign was seriously undercut when he admitted to an extramarital affair with actress and film producer Rielle Hunter, which produced a child.[30] (see federal political scandals)
Vito Fossella, Representative (R-NY) Arrested for drunk driving. Under questioning, the married Congressman and father of three,admitted to an affair with Laura Fay that produced a daughter. (2008)[31]
Tim Mahoney, Representative (D-FL) was elected to the seat of Mark Foley, who had resigned following sexual harassment charges from his congressional interns. Mahoney ran on a campaign promise to make "a world that is safer, more moral." In October 2008, he admitted he placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her, saying, "You work at my pleasure." He then admitted to multiple other affairs.[32]
Randall L. Tobias, Deputy Secretary of State (R) and former "AIDS Czar" appointed by George W. Bush: Stated that U.S. funds should be denied to countries that permitted prostitution.[33] He resigned on April 27, 2007, after confirming that he had been a customer of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the DC Madam.[34]
David Vitter, Senator (R-LA): Took over former Congressman Robert Livingston's House seat in 1999, who resigned following revelations of an extramarital affair. At the time, Vitter stated: "I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that (Bill) Clinton should resign as well ..."[35] Vitters' name was then discovered in the address book of the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey. (2007)[36]
Larry Craig, Senator (R-ID) Pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minneapolis airport men's room in June 2007, on a charge of lewd conduct. Senator Craig had previously stated that "people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy." (2007)[37]
Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL) Resigned when accused of sending sexually explicit emails to underage male congressional pages. He was replaced by Tim Mahoney. (2006)[38]
Brian J. Doyle, (R) Deputy Press Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was indicted for seducing what he thought was a 14-year-old girl on the Internet; she was actually a sheriff's deputy. On November 17, 2006, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, 10 years of probation, and was registered as a sex offender.[39]
Jack Ryan, Senate candidate (R-IL) During sealed divorce proceedings in 2004, his wife Jeri Ryan accused him of forcing her to go to public sex clubs and described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[40] Ms. Ryan is better known as Seven of Nine from the TV show Star Trek: Voyager.[41]
Don Sherwood, Representative (R-PA) Failed to win re-election following revelations of a five-year extramarital affair with Cynthia Ore, who accused him of physically abusing her. (2004)[42]
David Dreier, Representative (R-CA): Voted against a number of gay rights proposals, but was outed concerning his relationship with his chief of staff. (2004)[43] He is featured in the 2009 documentary film Outrage.
Steven C. LaTourette, Representative (R-OH): Elected in 1994 and had voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. He himself had a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook, while he was married. He married Laptook after his divorce. (2003)[44]
Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC): The noted segregationist fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with a 15-year-old African American who was employed by the Thurmond family. (1925; made public in 2003)[45]
Jeff Gannon (R) a.k.a. James Dale Guckert, a.k.a. "Bulldog": Admitted to White House press conferences as a journalist without proper vetting, and was allowed to ask such sympathetic questions that The Daily Show referred to him as "Chip Rightwingenstein of the Bush Agenda Gazette." Records show he was admitted to the White House numerous times even when there were no press conferences. He later admitted to being a $200-an-hour gay prostitute who had advertised himself on a series of websites with names such as hotmilitarystud.com."[46] (2005)[47]
Ed Schrock (R-VA) announced he would abort his 2004 attempt for a third term in Congress after allegedly being caught on tape soliciting sex from a male prostitute after having aggressively opposed various gay-rights issues in Congress, such as same-sex marriage and gays in the military.[48]
Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA) His affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared. Her body was found a year later and in 2008, an ex-felon with no relation to Condit was charged with her murder. (2001)[49] Condit had often demanded that Bill Clinton "come clean" about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.[50]
[edit] 1990–1999

 

[boilermaker55]

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Going to read all that garble b/c it's an interesting read. But pointing to some politicians bad behavior doesn't really erase the reality that family values are proven concepts. You should try not using erroneous logic bro.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Man, me and a bunch of lefty friends of mine were just talking about how we hated families. I'll be back after I make my kids dinner you dumb ******

 

[IndependntLogic]

You know what I find most interesting about this information?

It makes many of the Leftists in the forum angry to have it revealed and discussed.

It's horseshit, that's why. Most people WITH JOBS aren't poor.

Bulletin: most of the folks listed in the government stats as 'poor' aren't poor, either.

That's an interesting opinion politicalchic. One I've never even thought about, really. I'm not familiar with how they determine these things so I would be curious as to what leads you to that conclusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Man, me and a bunch of lefty friends of mine were just talking about how we hated families. I'll be back after I make my kids dinner you dumb ******

So many on the Left haven't a clue about the configuration to which they've subscribed.

Time for some remediation....


1. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt under the sponsorship of Felix Weil. Like Marx’s benefactor, Friedrich Engels, Weil was the son of a wealthy capitalist and an ardent Marxist who had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Frankfurt University. These rich slackers used family money to fund the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and critical theory.
http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

a. …the Institute attracted gifted scholars not only in economics but also in philosophy, history, psychology, sociology… convinced that the major impediment to the spread of Marxism was Western culture. In particular, they despised traditional Judeo/Christian ethics and morality, which they believed prevented the widespread acceptance of Marxism.

b. The Frankfurt School propagated a revisionistic Neo-Marxist interpretation of Western culture called Critical Theory, an aggressive promotion of a radical left-wing socio/political agenda. In essence, Critical Theory was a comprehensive and unrelenting assault on the values and institutions of Western civilization. Based on utopian social and political ideals, Critical Theory offered no realistic alternatives, but it was nonetheless a devastating critique of the history, philosophy, politics, social and economic structures, major institutions, and religious foundations of Western civilization.


2. Based on their influence on the New Left from the ‘60’s, these neo-Marxists have largely succeeded in terms of secularizing American culture and undermining traditional values and institutions, and much of its ideology, inspiration and tactics were gleaned from the Frankfurt School’s Institute of Social Research.

a. A key component of Critical Theory was its integration of Marxism with Darwinism and Freudianism, which, based on the idea of sexual repression, could be used against Judeo-Christian morality. Wilhelm Reich combined Darwin and Freud, and propounded the idea that humans are no different than any other animals in terms of sex, and therefore, there need be no sexual restrictions, and the blame should be placed on the authoritarian structure of the traditional family.

 

[boilermaker55]

Going to read all that garble b/c it's an interesting read. But pointing to some politicians bad behavior doesn't really erase the reality that family values are proven concepts. You should try not using erroneous logic bro.

If you want to stand on that statement, again, you had better look at all of the "generalizations" that you have glossed over.
I stand on my statement that the poliitical party that tries to shout down from their pedestal about family values that are like everyone else. They have no solid family values.
BRO!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's horseshit, that's why. Most people WITH JOBS aren't poor.

Bulletin: most of the folks listed in the government stats as 'poor' aren't poor, either.

That's an interesting opinion politicalchic. One I've never even thought about, really. I'm not familiar with how they determine these things so I would be curious as to what leads you to that conclusion.

Thank you for the opportunity...

1. The calculation itself is arbitrary....


'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

BTW, today, food is about 14% of the above budget.


2. The fundamental rule, always at the forefront, is

There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115


3. Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term, and the numerous government programs cannot admit this, or they would be forced to break the above rule no. 1.
Therefore, the government merely raises the calculation of 'poor.'
To see how bogus it is, 6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi.
And based on in-kind trasfers, such as free housing, the 'poor' generally do better than the workers supporting them.

There is poverty in this nation...but it is social poverty of attitude and aspiration...not material poverty, which I define as no home, no heat, no food.

4. Take a look at what the 'poor' own here:

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

 

[ClosedCaption]

PC did you know a paragraph of bullshit doesn't have shit to do with Ppl on your side thinking fam values is something only they hold dear. Dumb fuckers take something like "family values are good" and think they're taking a brave stance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC did you know a paragraph of bullshit doesn't have shit to do with Ppl on your side thinking fam values is something only they hold dear. Dumb fuckers take something like "family values are good" and think they're taking a brave stance.

If you tried, you could express your rage in a more civil manner.

The point is that you've identified yourself as being on the Left.
My post identifies the association of the Left with attacks on the family and on traditional values.

If you would like to dispute that, I'd be happy to entertain the debate.

If what you are trying to say is that, while you are on the Left in many ways, you are not opposed to the nuclear family and what Burke called 'the little platoon,' I believe you'd find your position hard to articulate.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Mitt Romney: This is why the GOP believes in family values

.....'Cause, if the Family still has $OME value, Romney knows how to squeeze-out every last, little penny (along with every hope & dream) they have left......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE]When Mitt Romney Came To Town[/ame]​

 

[IndependntLogic]

Bulletin: most of the folks listed in the government stats as 'poor' aren't poor, either.

That's an interesting opinion politicalchic. One I've never even thought about, really. I'm not familiar with how they determine these things so I would be curious as to what leads you to that conclusion.

Thank you for the opportunity...

1. The calculation itself is arbitrary....


'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

BTW, today, food is about 14% of the above budget.


2. The fundamental rule, always at the forefront, is

There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115


3. Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite.

and the numerous government programs cannot admit this, or they would be forced to break the above rule no. 1.
Therefore, the government merely raises the calculation of 'poor.'
To see how bogus it is, 6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi.
And based on in-kind trasfers, such as free housing, the 'poor' generally do better than the workers supporting them.

There is poverty in this nation...but it is social poverty of attitude and aspiration...not material poverty, which I define as no home, no heat, no food.

So if someone has a place to live and can eat two meals a day, they're not poor? Hmmm. I would probably not require people to be literally dying in the streets to deem them "poor".

4. Take a look at what the 'poor' own here:

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

Hmmm. the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source but at least you didn't quote Drudge, newsMax or something along those lines. I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08.
It is an interesting article though. I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich. You can buy one on Craigslist for $25 nowadays.
But I appreciate that you shared the article and it does make some legitimate points. I am absolutely certain there are people out there abusing welfare and other programs. However, I am also absolutely certain we have a LOT of poor people. I keep a roll of $1 bills in my ashtray for the ones on street corners. I feel so sorry for them. I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare. it's less if they do. That's under $1000 a month. Seems poor to me. For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor.
I think we have a lot of poor people and it's a shame that we also have so many people who abuse the system, that the resentments of people like yourself are perfectly understandable and justified.

 

[ClosedCaption]

PC did you know a paragraph of bullshit doesn't have shit to do with Ppl on your side thinking fam values is something only they hold dear. Dumb fuckers take something like "family values are good" and think they're taking a brave stance.

If you tried, you could express your rage in a more civil manner.

The point is that you've identified yourself as being on the Left.
My post identifies the association of the Left with attacks on the family and on traditional values.

If you would like to dispute that, I'd be happy to entertain the debate.

If what you are trying to say is that, while you are on the Left in many ways, you are not opposed to the nuclear family and what Burke called 'the little platoon,' I believe you'd find your position hard to articulate.

Why would I? This is a message board not Misscongeniality.com but it serves as a useful distraction so you employ that tactic often.

To your point, your paragraphs about people from the 1923 have shit to do with today. In order to debate we have to have somethign to debate.

I said Both sides believe in family values. You believe otherwise state the facts and not some opinion blog posting that talks about "Marxist and how they really feel.

If you had an original thought in your head, you would debate the family values point instead you run to some multi-tiered response trying to connect the dots over 100 years time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's an interesting opinion politicalchic. One I've never even thought about, really. I'm not familiar with how they determine these things so I would be curious as to what leads you to that conclusion.

Thank you for the opportunity...

1. The calculation itself is arbitrary....


'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

BTW, today, food is about 14% of the above budget.


2. The fundamental rule, always at the forefront, is

There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115


3. Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite.

and the numerous government programs cannot admit this, or they would be forced to break the above rule no. 1.
Therefore, the government merely raises the calculation of 'poor.'
To see how bogus it is, 6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi.
And based on in-kind trasfers, such as free housing, the 'poor' generally do better than the workers supporting them.

There is poverty in this nation...but it is social poverty of attitude and aspiration...not material poverty, which I define as no home, no heat, no food.

So if someone has a place to live and can eat two meals a day, they're not poor? Hmmm. I would probably not require people to be literally dying in the streets to deem them "poor".

4. Take a look at what the 'poor' own here:

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

Hmmm. the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source but at least you didn't quote Drudge, newsMax or something along those lines. I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08.
It is an interesting article though. I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich. You can buy one on Craigslist for $25 nowadays.
But I appreciate that you shared the article and it does make some legitimate points. I am absolutely certain there are people out there abusing welfare and other programs. However, I am also absolutely certain we have a LOT of poor people. I keep a roll of $1 bills in my ashtray for the ones on street corners. I feel so sorry for them. I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare. it's less if they do. That's under $1000 a month. Seems poor to me. For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor.
I think we have a lot of poor people and it's a shame that we also have so many people who abuse the system, that the resentments of people like yourself are perfectly understandable and justified.

1. "the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source..."
Let's be very clear: it is bogus to dispute a source, rather than the data provided.

The is nothing wrong with Drudge, newsMax, Huffington, NYTimes, etc.
Deal with the data.

2. "I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08."
The post suggest that Americans are doing better over time...not a specific year or three period. We are talking about trends and directions.

3. "I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich."
Who said it did?
Focus like a laser: we are speaking of the definition of poor. I've given both my definition and that of the government.
My definition is specific, and testable.
If you believe the government stats, you are being played.
Note, all have living quaters, almost half own their own homes, all have refrigerators, I doubt they are empty, all have color TV's, etc., etc.

4."I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare."

Now, watch this very carefully:

When reading the propaganda about poverty incomes, realize that they leave out the income transfers from various government programs: benefits are substantial and the recipients pay nothing. Those in the bottom 20% of income recipients receive over 70% of their income in such transfers. Now, why doesn’t the Old Left Media tell this?

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28

b. This tends to explain how Americans living below the poverty level spend $1.75 for every $1 of income. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty

Did you understand the math?
"For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor."
But if the 14k represents only 22.2% of what they get, then the real income is $63,000!

Still poor?

The average family income in the US is from $49,434 to $51,413.

Get it yet?


You say what?




"Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite."

This is economics, not politics.
I'd be happy to prove my point:


Let’s be clear: 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. From 1969 to 1999, the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!!
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

 

[IndependntLogic]

Thank you for the opportunity...

1. The calculation itself is arbitrary....


'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

BTW, today, food is about 14% of the above budget.


2. The fundamental rule, always at the forefront, is

There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115


3. Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite.

and the numerous government programs cannot admit this, or they would be forced to break the above rule no. 1.
Therefore, the government merely raises the calculation of 'poor.'
To see how bogus it is, 6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi.
And based on in-kind trasfers, such as free housing, the 'poor' generally do better than the workers supporting them.

There is poverty in this nation...but it is social poverty of attitude and aspiration...not material poverty, which I define as no home, no heat, no food.

So if someone has a place to live and can eat two meals a day, they're not poor? Hmmm. I would probably not require people to be literally dying in the streets to deem them "poor".

4. Take a look at what the 'poor' own here:

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

Hmmm. the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source but at least you didn't quote Drudge, newsMax or something along those lines. I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08.
It is an interesting article though. I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich. You can buy one on Craigslist for $25 nowadays.
But I appreciate that you shared the article and it does make some legitimate points. I am absolutely certain there are people out there abusing welfare and other programs. However, I am also absolutely certain we have a LOT of poor people. I keep a roll of $1 bills in my ashtray for the ones on street corners. I feel so sorry for them. I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare. it's less if they do. That's under $1000 a month. Seems poor to me. For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor.
I think we have a lot of poor people and it's a shame that we also have so many people who abuse the system, that the resentments of people like yourself are perfectly understandable and justified.

1. "the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source..."
Let's be very clear: it is bogus to dispute a source, rather than the data provided.
Let's be very clear. I acknowledged that although Heritage is obviously a VERY Conservative source, I consider it a reliable source of data. So why the confrontational tone?
The is nothing wrong with Drudge, newsMax, Huffington, NYTimes, etc.
Deal with the data.

2. "I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08."
The post suggest that Americans are doing better over time...not a specific year or three period. We are talking about trends and directions.

3. "I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich."
Who said it did?
Focus like a laser: we are speaking of the definition of poor. I've given both my definition and that of the government.
My definition is specific, and testable.
And from where were the stats in the article on Heritage obtained?
If you believe the government stats, you are being played.
Note, all have living quaters, almost half own their own homes, all have refrigerators, I doubt they are empty, all have color TV's, etc., etc.
So if a person in Detroit owns a home which has gone from being worth $100K to being worth $5K, has lost their job but just happened to own a tv, refrigerator and a dvd before their income went from $70K a year to $11K a year, then by your "measurable and specific" standards, they are not poor. According to your "specific and testable" method, they must lose everything right down to the refrigerator and any food in it, to qualofy as poor. Hmmm. Yeah I see a rather obvious flaw in that one.

4."I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare."

Now, watch this very carefully:

When reading the propaganda about poverty incomes, realize that they leave out the income transfers from various government programs: benefits are substantial and the recipients pay nothing. Those in the bottom 20% of income recipients receive over 70% of their income in such transfers. Now, why doesn’t the Old Left Media tell this?

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28

b. This tends to explain how Americans living below the poverty level spend $1.75 for every $1 of income. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty

Did you understand the math?
"For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor."
But if the 14k represents only 22.2% of what they get, then the real income is $63,000!

Wow. Talking about someone who has bought into the propaganda! You think that a family that qualifies for government help by showing a gross income of less than $14K, lives on $63K a year? Well so much for any credibility you might have had.
Still poor?

The average family income in the US is from $49,434 to $51,413.

Get it yet?


You say what?
I say you're drinking kool-aid and don't get out much. I mean, I believe there is widespread abuse of welfare etc... But the extremist hogwash you're shoveling would be good for growing plants.



"Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite."

This is economics, not politics.
I'd be happy to prove my point:


Let’s be clear: 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. From 1969 to 1999, the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!!
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

So a couple things here.
1. As someone who just chastised Closedcaption about the civility of his tone, you might want to examine yours.
2. I volunteer with my fellow veterans every week. One out of every three homeless men you see are vets.
They do not live a $60K / year lifestyle.
Those who are not homeless (and may even still own their homes) but in need of government assistance do not live a $60K a year lifestyle. That's just plain BS. Even when it comes to those who dare to own tv's and dvd players (The atrocity!).
There are a LOT of them and they genuinely need and DESERVE our help.
And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. Tell me which major US city isn't flooded with homeless people on the corners? Detroit? NYC? LA? Chicago? DC? SF? Where?
I have lived in countries that define poverty the way you would.
No thanks.
While I have displayed both objectivity and open-mindedness, you seem guided in your economic beliefs by a desire for them to conform with your political ideology. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Didn't you also criticize Closed Caption for that, as well? jus sayin.

 

[rdean]

Bulletin: most of the folks listed in the government stats as 'poor' aren't poor, either.

That's an interesting opinion politicalchic. One I've never even thought about, really. I'm not familiar with how they determine these things so I would be curious as to what leads you to that conclusion.

Thank you for the opportunity...

1. The calculation itself is arbitrary....


'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

BTW, today, food is about 14% of the above budget.


2. The fundamental rule, always at the forefront, is

There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115


3. Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term, and the numerous government programs cannot admit this, or they would be forced to break the above rule no. 1.
Therefore, the government merely raises the calculation of 'poor.'
To see how bogus it is, 6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi.
And based on in-kind trasfers, such as free housing, the 'poor' generally do better than the workers supporting them.

There is poverty in this nation...but it is social poverty of attitude and aspiration...not material poverty, which I define as no home, no heat, no food.

4. Take a look at what the 'poor' own here:

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

6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi? We know that 6% of scientists are Republican.

Poor Republicans in a "jacuzzi".

 

[rdean]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtV7vKDbU3A&feature=related]Does Mitt Romney Care About Jobs or Just Making Money? - YouTube[/ame]

People talking about Mitt Romney's "Family Values".​