Are the poor really poor?

Judged:

1

1

1

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

>
>
This thread was started by a brain damaged conservative nut set out to prove that just because someone living in a cardboard shack, driving a beat up 65 Chevy and watching CNN on an old TV set they bought for $3 bucks at a rich man's estate sale is part of the elite nouveau riche crowd.
It will be interesting to watch this moron try and make his case that the poor are not poor but richer than the Koch brothers....HA-HAA!

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else.
Forget the image of Appalachia or rundown ghettos: A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.
--On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal.
--On any day, children are hungry in .25 percent of U.S. homes.
--96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food.
--83 percent of the poor said they have enough to eat.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/bl... -‘poor’-consume-rich/348206

Judged:

1

1

1

TSQ wrote:

<quoted text>
It has now become standard propaganda for people on the Right to talk about how well off America's poor people are by detailing their "great luxuries: such as refrigerators, old VCRs (how new is this technology, by the way?) and used cars. Because a working poor family can afford a couple of used vehicles (or not replace their very old original vehicles) and/or because there is a computer in the home (do you know how cheap some computers can be purchased for? Do you think they are always a luxury and not a necessity for many people these days?) does not make them well off. You prove over and over you don't know how many people are forced to live these days. Maybe you have it too good yourself to have perspective on the lives of millions of your fellow Americans.
I don't know if any of these numbers are correct or not, but even if they are, if you turn them around they still point to a big problem for many people in America in poverty, and they point to a low estimate on the problem, not a high estimate.
How many American "household"s are there? Let's do the math: 310 million people divided by 5 people per household (It might be closer to 4 but you can adjust that number in the opposite direction if you like)= 62 million people x 1%
=
620,000 Americans a day, on average, who are forced to miss a meal. This is a minimum estimate, to be sure, but is according to your conservative source.
How many US "homes" are there? 100,000,000? That means that 250,000 homes, at a minimum, have hungry children in them. A pretty low number compared to the entire population, but not insubstantial. And again, other sources would put this number much higher, especially since the recession of 2007-09
17% of the poor say they do not have enough to eat. How many tens of millions of poor people are there in this country? How many millions of people does that equal who do not have enough to eat?
Why are you on the side of minimizing these problems instead of the side that thinks they need addressing?
And another thing: IF things are not so bad for the poor in this country, maybe the president isn't doing such a bad job after all. Wrap your head around that.

Judged:

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
That was point 25% not 25% of homes have someone hungry..........LOL
And I am not saying that people don't need help.......
How much go the bailout money went to foreign banks and corporations????
That would have bought every poor person in the USA food for years..........LOL

Judged:

1

1

TSQ wrote:

<quoted text>
I am glad you have some sympathy for the poor in the US. My math was correct, though.
100,000,000 million homes x .25%= 250,000 homes.
25% of one hundred million would be 25 million homes and I did not write that.

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you don't read much of what I write..........
I have all the sympathy for the poor of any liberal......
I have always said we should not be spending one penny on a earth quake reuse in another country until the USA does not have one hungry person (besides the ones that chose to be homeless)

Judged:

1

1

Godfrey wrote:

Who are you trying to kid? You don't give a damn about know poor anythin. The only thing you want are those Wall Street investments your Union made to keep giving you the money you don't deserve. So stop trying to bs us. Just take the money, go to the strip club, if your able, and stop being such a damn hypocrite.

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I see once more the facts prove you wrong..........LOL
So you dodge and dodge..........
That is why you refuse to answer any questions..........LOL
Like what would a fine liberal do to encourage business and the rich to invest in the USA instead of overseas..........LOL
Yes your answer so far was to tell us that the government hammer will stop foreign investments by Americans..........LOL

Judged:

3

2

1

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
greedy little rich men...
the diplomatic TSQ...

TSQ wrote:

<quoted text>
I DO read much of what you write (though not all, admitedly) but this post led me to believe you were trying to minimize the plight of the poor in the US, as others have tried to do using the same information and statistics as you cited here. I am glad you have "all the sympathy for the poor of any liberal" and hope that does not hurt you in the eyes of your Topix compatriots on the right too much!

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
>
>
You know, if you would have started this thread by saying that the poor in the USA are much better off than, let's say, the poorest Africans, I would have agreed with you , no doubt.
But, as you generally do, you started by regurgitating wacko wing conservative talking points, and if you are indeed as rich as you pretend to be, that made you look like one of those "let them eat cake" variety of greedy little rich men.
I see that the diplomatic TSQ already set your moral compass straight so have a nice evening.

Judged:

2

1

1

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

>
mad rants...
mental asylum...
crazy nut...

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
If you had read the article before you spouted ignorantly you would have seen that the story is just what you say..........LOL
It compares the Poor of the USA to the poor of the world..........LOL
But as normal for you nothing but ignorant rant spew from your face..........LOL

Judged:

2

1

stephens1949 wrote:

Poor people are poor because the 1 per-centers keep them that way. It is a relative thing when compared to the rest of humanity.
We have everything yet we have nothing. No dignity!

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Most conservatives call me a liberal and most liberals call me a republican..........LOL
Do I give a rats arse???
NOPE
Do I change my tune??
NOPE..........LOL