or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Kerry a liar?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kerry a liar? - Page 5

post #161 of 163
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
They live in households below the poverty line because the government picks a line and calls everything above it "middle class" and everything below it "poverty."

The federal poverty level for a family of three is about $16,000 a year. That's pretty poor. I'd be curious to know how you'd propose to judge poverty rates in America without "picking a line".

Quote:
[i]You should also mention that the clear majority of these "households" are single women with children. They also choose to work part time disproportionately and refuse to take jobs with less flexible hours since their priority is children over money. Their income reflects this and it is not a product of some oppression.[/B]

The fact that you think poor single woman are "choosing" to pass on more money because "they're priority is their children", as if they were picking between ballet lessons and brunch, tells me you really and truly don't know anything about poverty and that you have one of the ugliest, most distorted world veiws I've encountered.


Quote:
[iThe part about college is 100% pure bullshit. Their income would open up an array of grants and loans. They can take a minimum of two years at any community college or (GASP) get a loan to get a well paying trade that then allows them to pay for college in the field they truly wish to study.[/B]

Which funds are constantly being cut. So a single poor working mother is going to go into debt for all of her living expenses and tuition, figure out how to warehouse her kid for free, on the off chance she can get one of those "good paying" tradesmens jobs that apparently are going begging. This is the problem with steeping yourself in right wing viscousness, you start to believe the absurd lies about what the world looks like outside of your comfort zone.


Quote:
[i]100% unbackable bullshit. Most middle class and ALL impoverished children qualify for free lunch at public schools where they are served two meals a day for absolutely free. Study after study shows most children, even in impoverished homes eat out two to three times a week and have a growing obesity problem from ever earlier ages.[/B]

What the hell is wrong with you? In order to justify your "every man for himself" ugliness, you actually deny that there is any hunger in America. "Study after study shows"? By whom? Because the US dept of agriculture disagrees: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/
Why not go whole hog and just claim there is no such thing as poverty? That way, social programs are not only wrong, but pointless.



Quote:
[iMinimum wage jobs are predominately held by students or very young people. They hold them in transitionary times when they are gaining the skill or trade to move on up the ladder. I earned minimum wage when I was 16 and some above it all the way through college. The second I was out of college I started earning real wages. I went from earning a maximum of $7000 a year (poverty) to earning a middle class wage and have every year since then. This is NORMAL. My brother earned minimum wage while going to trade school to become an auto and diesel mechanic. He earns a middle class wage and has every since he graduated. Again this is NORMAL. [/B]

Christ. It was normal for you. It's normal for people who have access to some resources, who have a way to move into the opportunity mainstream. The whole point of poverty is it erects barriers to "normalicy", barriers of stress, poor nutrition, access to capital, access to education, access to suport services, etc. How you get from your personal experience to how it therefore must be for everybody is beyond me, but I think that failure of empathy and imagination says a lot about where you're coming from.

Quote:
[i]Regardless of jobs being off-shored, the per capital income is still rising in America. The reason poverty advocates focus on household incomes is because households are getting smaller and thus it looks like their wages are shrinking when in reality they are rising per person. So a generation ago Dad, Mom and three children might have earned $50k a year with Dad working, mom at home and the three children at school. ($10k per person in the household) Now the single mother with her one child might be earning $25k per year. They are classified as a "household" and thus it looks like the household income has declined. In reality though the household income has gone up to $12.5k per person. The household is much smaller.

In an age of 50% divorce rates, we have more and smaller households. However per capita income is and has been rising.[/B]

Oh for God's sake. Poverty levels are calculated by number of members in a household. Why is it so important to you to believe that poverty and hunger don't exist? Why are you compelled to make shit up and deny easily verifiable facts and distort the rest? Really, I don't understand why any human being, when faced with the reality of suffering, would choose to loudly assert that there is no suffering, just people who choose to not try hard enough.



Quote:
[i]Keep spreading your ignorance. I have worked and LIVED in the poorest neighborhoods. I have dealt with this population for over a decade. Go to any social worker and see how much remorse they have for 95% of the population receiving services. The people on the frontlines know them best and know the scams that occur. [/B]

Yeah, they're just nasty and lazy and criminal and evil. That certainly solves that problem.

Quote:
BTW assuming welfare recipients must be non-white is probably the most racist thing I have heard so enjoy not only your ignornace, but your racism as well. [/B]

Now you're scaring me. I haven't said a word about race, but somehow it appears in your mind. Probably a coincidence.




Quote:
Kiss my ass. I don't have to trade places with them. I WAS THEM retard. My father was a mechanic and my mom was a housewife. We had 4 kids in my household and my financial aide application showed over $10k of unmet need every year that the state college did absolutely nothing to meet. (I can't possible be poor, I'm WHITE) My biological father was a drug addict and my stepfather and biological mother are both alcoholics.

I'll be a millionaire before I'm 40 and a multimillionaire before I retire. [/B][/[/B]

No, you weren't "them" (again with the race stuff, maybe the root of your animosity?)

Quote:
Take your wannbe shit sandwich that you portray and enjoy eating it. Being on the bottom doesn't do anything but motivate you to get moving and get better. If you ENJOY being on the bottom, then there isn't a single thing to government can buy you or give you that will change that.[/B]

So, at the end of the day, it's all about "enjoying" being on the bottom. Lazy, lazy welfare bloodsuckers. The only people who can maintain that cartoon are people who don't really see the truly destitute in America, or don't want to.

Your rage against this idea seems kinda... over the top. Like you hate these people. But of course we're not talking about race, are we?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #162 of 163
Quote:
All this contemptible, ignorant bullshit in this thread about welfare queens and bootstrapping and lazy poor folk living off the dole literally makes me ill. And coming from a bunch of white, privledged tech empowered kids it borders on the obscene. You people have no idea what your talking about, and apparently are perfectly happy to parrot the slogans that you've heard without doing any research into the actual faces and facts of poverty.

Dear Adda,

Note to yourself. When you declare that we are all rich, WHITE, and empowered. Then claim we know nothing about poverty as a result. You have thus declared that poverty is NOT RICH, NOT WHITE, and NOT privledged.

You can now see that you in fact DID bring up race, and I addressed it head on. You can imply in your cowardly way, but I'll call it directly what it is and likewise call you on what you claim.

Now I'll hit a few of your replies. But most of it is nonsense worth ignoring. You did post a link and so let's address it.

You link claims the level of poverty for a family of four is met by 38.1% of households. It claims that out of 100% of households 3.5% of them our food insecure. Food insecure is defined as not having enough food for a healthy active lifestyle on any ONE DAY of the entire year.

Talk about stretching your poor. Out of ALL THE POVERTY FAMILIES in the entire United States. 10% might be food insecure on any one day of the year. It then goes and breaks even that 3.5% down into child hunger.

Take note of the quote...

Quote:
In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 13.1 million children. Of these individuals, 6.3 million adults and 3.1 million children lived in households where someone experienced hunger during the year. However, even in households with hunger, most of the children were not hungry. In most households, children (especially younger children) are protected from hunger unless hunger among adults in the household becomes quite severe. The number of children living in households classified as "food insecure with hunger among children" was 567,000 (0.8 percent of the children in the Nation).

Note that we are now down from MILLIONS to less than one million being food insecure at any ONE TIME during the entire year. In fact we are at barely half a million children who are "food insecure."

Now take a look at how even that half a million is stretched by looking at the definition for "food insecure."

If they answer yes, even once, to any of the following criteria during an entire one year span, then they may end up classified as food insecure.

*Adults ate less than they felt they should.
*They worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more.
*The food they bought didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more.
*They couldn't afford to eat balanced meals.

So the adults gave the kids a bag of cheetos and a bean burrito. They are "food insecure." They worried about running out of food. They are "food insecure."

This isn't callousness. However taking a worry or an unbalanced or less nutritious meal and calling it millions of children starving is just a bold face lie.

Taken from your own sources...

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #163 of 163
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I plan on more travel abroad in future but simply from my trip to Paris I can say that indeed there are poor in many countries not just the US. Any large city will contain poor people and poor live also in rural areas (again in pretty much all countries)

I would hope comments of the like in the quoted materal above are given rest here in AO.

Fellows

So true, even welfare in France will never prevent to have poors begging in the street. There is a law in France giving a minimal ressource of 350 per people, and there is still poor people in the streets.
There is also many people coming from others countries : east europe for example.

In reverse you will not find this begger in rural aeras. People have less money but live with dignity here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Kerry a liar?