Understanding the wealth of the poor

[Inthemiddle]

Welfare and all these social programs are nothing but forced charity. We taxpayers are being forced to support those that can't or won't take care of themselves. We are being forced to give charity. And thats what it is Charity.

And there's nothing wrong with that. We live in a society, not an individuality.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The more welfare you give the poor the more they expect and think they are entitled too.

Citation needed.

 

[Inthemiddle]

anyone who makes piss poor life choices or won't take care of themselves.

You need to justify this generalization, or stop using it.

 

[Claudette]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

Big difference there dimwit.

A real charity is something you give to because YOU WANT to give to it and support it.

The charity the Govt gives out is fORCED.. We taxpayers have no say. We are forced to give charity to anyone who makes piss poor life choices or won't take care of themselves.
Otherwise know as an entitlement.

Big difference between wanting to give and being forced to give.

I was talking about the recipient, not the giver, you illiterate cow.

Illieterate Cow??

Well then I guess dumbfuck fits you to a T.

The recipient will take anything anyone wants to give him. It makes no difference to him whether its forced charity by the taxpayers or a real charity. They don't care as long as they get the money, the good or the service and they don't have to pay for it.

If you think they are gonna give up the freeloader life style to actually take care of themselves then I think your sadly mistaken.

Of course it makes them lazy and dependent. Why would they actually want to take care of themselves when we taxpayers are doing such a great job of doing it for them.

Common sense dumbfuck.

 

[Brutus]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

huge huge difference!! federal welfare destroyed the black family, for example, almost like genocide and became an entitlement,i.e., an entitlement to get paid for not working and not being responsible. You'd have to be a racist to feel blacks are the way they are because of genetics rather than disgusting liberal programs.

Charity is temporary, humbling, embarrassing and rarely appears to be a distructive entitlement.

"we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Prof. Walter Williams. Ph.D

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand these very basic and very obvious principles.

 

[8537]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

huge huge difference!! federal welfare destroyed the black family, for example, almost like genocide and became an entitlement,i.e., an entitlement to get paid for not working and not being responsible. You'd have to be a racist to feel blacks are the way they are because of genetics rather than disgusting liberal programs.

Charity is temporary, humbling, embarrassing and rarely appears to be a distructive entitlement.

"we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Prof. Walter Williams. Ph.D

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand these very basic and very obvious principles.

^Yet another who believes blacks were better off in 1955. How quaint.

More whites collect TANF than blacks. Please make a note of it.

 

[Brutus]

Link for Cut and Paste: How Poor Are America's Poor? 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:


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

You're telling me that 46% of all poor households bought their homes while they were poor? No? They what? Oh, they bought it when times were better and they could actually make enough money at their job to afford a house.

Air conditioning? Again, don't know what the heck you are talking about but the poor around here that have air conditioning call it a fan and those aren't the ones that have no home at all....

BTW, America is BIGGER than London,, Vienna, Athens, etc. I think you'll find when you look at our big cities vs their big cities, you'll find the living space to be closer to the same, especially for the poor. Love all this "lying with statistics".

Computers? bought during better times or given them by people who bought better ones.

Game systems? Play stations? really? That's in your stats? I doubt that. The old ninetendo systems yeah...but play stations? Most middle class people I know don't even have those. More lying with statistics.

6% of houses are overcrowded? Define overcrowded? What is the percentage of those with NO homes? Do they count? Oh wait, no they don't. Didn't even include them on the last census. We have no less than 3 tent cities in our city, how did they count the homeless during the 2010 census? They counted the people on the buses at night.......yeah, that's gonna do it...NOT!!

You forgot that tvs cost more in the 70's. Oh wait, now they cost more again.....In fact, our government made tvs for the poor USELESS. How many of those that get cable only get BASIC cable, meaning just the stations they would have gotten without cable had the government not made their tvs worthless? Not in your statistics? Didn't think so.

Of course, they could go without tv altogether, and many of them do.

DVDs? VHSs again, GIVEN to them. I sold an entire box of VHS tapes this last summer for $10.00. Yeah, I bet you're all over those people for spending that money on tapes, how dare they? Heck, they could have gone to, no wait movies cost more than $10.00.

The Zoo cost more than $10.00 and it's $5.00 to get into point defiance park. You want to leave them with NO entertainment, no jobs, and of course they should all die from the heat....decrease the surplus population and all that.

Me thinks those 3 ghosts have a lot of work to do this year.

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

 

[Katzndogz]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

There is a big difference. You're a lib so you can't see it. Charitiy is given voluntarily. The government gets its money by seizing it. No charity can tell you "pay us or we'll put you in jail and take everything you have".

You can decide that the chairity you support isn't spending your money wisely and refuse to donate more. You don't get that choice with the government. Private charities are subject to oversight, the government is not.

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

There is a big difference. You're a lib so you can't see it. Charitiy is given voluntarily. The government gets its money by seizing it. No charity can tell you "pay us or we'll put you in jail and take everything you have".

You can decide that the chairity you support isn't spending your money wisely and refuse to donate more. You don't get that choice with the government. Private charities are subject to oversight, the government is not.

I just got a raise and a big bonus........I'm going to kick some over to charity
I lost my job..........no charitable donations this year

Charities are dependent on the economy. In a strong economy, more people donate and fewer people need charity

In a weak economy, fewer people donate and more people are looking for charity

That is why charities alone are not the answer. During the Great Depression, Hoover looked for private charities to take care of the people. It was not enough

 

[Againsheila]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

huge huge difference!! federal welfare destroyed the black family, for example, almost like genocide and became an entitlement,i.e., an entitlement to get paid for not working and not being responsible. You'd have to be a racist to feel blacks are the way they are because of genetics rather than disgusting liberal programs.

Charity is temporary, humbling, embarrassing and rarely appears to be a distructive entitlement.

"we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Prof. Walter Williams. Ph.D

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand these very basic and very obvious principles.

Funny, I know several black families that are doing just fine.

 

[Katzndogz]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

huge huge difference!! federal welfare destroyed the black family, for example, almost like genocide and became an entitlement,i.e., an entitlement to get paid for not working and not being responsible. You'd have to be a racist to feel blacks are the way they are because of genetics rather than disgusting liberal programs.

Charity is temporary, humbling, embarrassing and rarely appears to be a distructive entitlement.

"we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Prof. Walter Williams. Ph.D

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand these very basic and very obvious principles.

Funny, I know several black families that are doing just fine.

I know many! They rejected the libeal BS about being owed something because they were born black.

 

[Againsheila]

Link for Cut and Paste: How Poor Are America's Poor? 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:


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

You're telling me that 46% of all poor households bought their homes while they were poor? No? They what? Oh, they bought it when times were better and they could actually make enough money at their job to afford a house.

Air conditioning? Again, don't know what the heck you are talking about but the poor around here that have air conditioning call it a fan and those aren't the ones that have no home at all....

BTW, America is BIGGER than London,, Vienna, Athens, etc. I think you'll find when you look at our big cities vs their big cities, you'll find the living space to be closer to the same, especially for the poor. Love all this "lying with statistics".

Computers? bought during better times or given them by people who bought better ones.

Game systems? Play stations? really? That's in your stats? I doubt that. The old ninetendo systems yeah...but play stations? Most middle class people I know don't even have those. More lying with statistics.

6% of houses are overcrowded? Define overcrowded? What is the percentage of those with NO homes? Do they count? Oh wait, no they don't. Didn't even include them on the last census. We have no less than 3 tent cities in our city, how did they count the homeless during the 2010 census? They counted the people on the buses at night.......yeah, that's gonna do it...NOT!!

You forgot that tvs cost more in the 70's. Oh wait, now they cost more again.....In fact, our government made tvs for the poor USELESS. How many of those that get cable only get BASIC cable, meaning just the stations they would have gotten without cable had the government not made their tvs worthless? Not in your statistics? Didn't think so.

Of course, they could go without tv altogether, and many of them do.

DVDs? VHSs again, GIVEN to them. I sold an entire box of VHS tapes this last summer for $10.00. Yeah, I bet you're all over those people for spending that money on tapes, how dare they? Heck, they could have gone to, no wait movies cost more than $10.00.

The Zoo cost more than $10.00 and it's $5.00 to get into point defiance park. You want to leave them with NO entertainment, no jobs, and of course they should all die from the heat....decrease the surplus population and all that.

Me thinks those 3 ghosts have a lot of work to do this year.

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

I've already shown that the Census Bureau didn't count accurately and you still use them as your reference? How many tent cities in your city? Did they count those? No? Didn't think so.

Then the Census Bureau had the nerve to tell us that homelessness in our city has gone down. Guess what? The cost of the bus has gone up...the homeless can't afford to ride them every night anymore. We have more people staying in our shelters than ever before. (The census was taken during the summer when our shelters were closed) We have more programs for the hungry and we have more hungry than ever before. More people coming to the foodbanks than ever before.

Yet fewer homeless? I don't think so.

Good news though...the number of millionaires has gone up. In fact it's gone up so much they are now considered upper middle class...pretty much makes us the poor, so I guess, yeah the poor are living better. Maybe you're right, guess it all depends on your definition of "poor".

 

[Againsheila]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

There is a big difference. You're a lib so you can't see it. Charitiy is given voluntarily. The government gets its money by seizing it. No charity can tell you "pay us or we'll put you in jail and take everything you have".

You can decide that the chairity you support isn't spending your money wisely and refuse to donate more. You don't get that choice with the government. Private charities are subject to oversight, the government is not.

I just got a raise and a big bonus........I'm going to kick some over to charity
I lost my job..........no charitable donations this year

Charities are dependent on the economy. In a strong economy, more people donate and fewer people need charity

In a weak economy, fewer people donate and more people are looking for charity

That is why charities alone are not the answer. During the Great Depression, Hoover looked for private charities to take care of the people. It was not enough

Which is why the rich now want to tax the poor....yeah, tax those who have no money. We really need a modern day Robin Hood.

 

[rightwinger]

huge huge difference!! federal welfare destroyed the black family, for example, almost like genocide and became an entitlement,i.e., an entitlement to get paid for not working and not being responsible. You'd have to be a racist to feel blacks are the way they are because of genetics rather than disgusting liberal programs.

Charity is temporary, humbling, embarrassing and rarely appears to be a distructive entitlement.

"we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Prof. Walter Williams. Ph.D

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand these very basic and very obvious principles.

Funny, I know several black families that are doing just fine.

I know many! They rejected the libeal BS about being owed something because they were born black.

Other than rightwing blogs......where has anyone ever said you were owed something because you were born black? That is another rightwing fairy tale

Liberals want to help people who need help. Conservatives want to turn their backs on fellow Americans in need because it is inconvenient for wealthy americans

 

[Brutus]

^Yet another who believes blacks were better off in 1955. How quaint.

In fact blacks were making far more progress in the 1950's before they were decimated by liberal programs in the 1960's.

"We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism." - Walter Williams

More whites collect TANF than blacks. Please make a note of it.

In fact, far less whites on a percentage basis. As a liberal that will be over your head. Sorry

 

[Brutus]

Liberals want to help people who need help. Conservatives want to turn their backs on fellow Americans in need because it is inconvenient for wealthy americans

Its not inconvenient at all, thats why conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Its that conservatives have the IQ to see that liberal welfare has decimated black America, for example, while liberals are merely bigots who imagine they are morally superior.

 

[Brutus]

Funny, I know several black families that are doing just fine.

We are not tallking about the black families you know, but rather black families in general. As a liberal you will lack the IQ to grasp the difference. Sorry.

 

[Sunshine]

Rather than appreciate that we enjoy a standard of life in America that even the poor enjoy, you folks would rather live like a third world country. The elites in their guarded communities with their servants and the peasants living in complete squalor with no electricity, running water, sanitation, food, housing or health care.

You have no problem giving corporations trillion dollar welfare, but some poor old woman, after working all her life, she can choose between having heat, food or medication.

Until you have seen poor in other countries you can't appreciate poor in this country. I have been and I have seen.

And I have planned my retirement so I don't have to make the choices you mention. And if I ever did, I raised my children to do well and be well off enough to take me in if I had nowhere else to go.

Many of the people like you describe, former working people, retire in debt, never saved a dime, and raised a bunch of hellions who won't give them the time of day.

 

[Katzndogz]

Anyone else notice the idiocy of saying that government assistance to the poor is a bad thing, because it supposedly makes them lazy and dependent, blah blah blah,

and the same people turn around and advocate charity?

If I'm a poor person, and the government is feeding me, for example, or a charity is doing it,

what the ****'s the difference?

huge huge difference!! federal welfare destroyed the black family, for example, almost like genocide and became an entitlement,i.e., an entitlement to get paid for not working and not being responsible. You'd have to be a racist to feel blacks are the way they are because of genetics rather than disgusting liberal programs.

Charity is temporary, humbling, embarrassing and rarely appears to be a distructive entitlement.

"we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Prof. Walter Williams. Ph.D

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand these very basic and very obvious principles.

^Yet another who believes blacks were better off in 1955. How quaint.

More whites collect TANF than blacks. Please make a note of it.

Please make a note that whites are a significantly larger percentage of the population. Please make a note that factoring in the percentage of whites, to the percentage of whites on TANF, the percentage of blacks, the percentage of black on TANF, blacks are significantly overrepresented.

 

[Sunshine]

The more welfare you give the poor the more they expect and think they are entitled too. Why go out and work if you can get money for just sitting at home. I know there are exceptions to this and some really want to get out of poverty but when you have generation after generation on welfare its something with the family and the family doesnt want to improve themselves.

I have worked in the projects. I will agree that housing for our poor is pretty good if you compare it to the way even working people in other countries live. However, wanting out of poverty isn't really the issue. Some can do it and some can't. I have worked with people who did get out of the projects. They went to school on Pell grants, but sadly, what sounds like a lot of money to people who don't have any money can be very misleading. I know a couple of social workers who are about the angriest people I ever met because they aren't rich. They thought social worker pay would make them rich. And it didn't. Many can't get out because they know nothing else. They don't fit anywhere. Many have patronized the local drug dealers until their crack use has turned them into psychotics. (Think, now who want's street drugs legalized.) And some just have low IQ to start with. Many are mentally ill, others have physical handicaps. I never saw a truly able bodied, able minded person the entire time I worked in the projects.

Anyone who thinks 'these people' are living a high life on the taxpayers is really saying that 'these people' are smarter than the taxpayers because they have found a way out. If that were true, everyone would be doing it. And everyone just isn't.