rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 According to your graphic, "poverty" was defined as being more than 50% below national median income. They claim the median has been "equalized" but I'm not sure how they did that. It's true -- America has lots of problems. It's still awesome, though, and I like living here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Even the poor find more positive things about their lives than j_b or Prole. That's the ultimate irony. Here comes the quack pop-psychologist with his crystal ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 According to your graphic, "poverty" was defined as being more than 50% below national median income. They claim the median has been "equalized" but I'm not sure how they did that. It's true -- America has lots of problems. It's still awesome, though, and I like living here. It's not enough to agree there are problems! You have to mock patriotism first (or anyone happier than you), then fervently wring your hands, then act all smug and self-righteous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/6/20060906-100020-4785r/ Most of these numbers come from the Heritage Foundation, so they're questionable, but still interesting The official poverty measure counts only monetary income. It considers antipoverty programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and school lunches, among others, “in-kind benefits” — and hence not income. So, despite everything these programs do to relieve poverty, they aren’t counted as income when Washington measures the poverty rate. In 2002, the federal government spent $522 billion on low-income assistance programs. But $418 billion was not considered cash income and not included in calculating any family’s income. Did that $418 billion do nothing to alleviate poverty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/6/20060906-100020-4785r/ Most of these numbers come from the Heritage Foundation, so they're questionable, but still interesting The official poverty measure counts only monetary income. It considers antipoverty programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and school lunches, among others, “in-kind benefits” — and hence not income. So, despite everything these programs do to relieve poverty, they aren’t counted as income when Washington measures the poverty rate. In 2002, the federal government spent $522 billion on low-income assistance programs. But $418 billion was not considered cash income and not included in calculating any family’s income. Did that $418 billion do nothing to alleviate poverty? So if we double the funding for these programs, the poverty rate remains the same. And progressives can still whine as much about how bad it is, as if nothing got better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Interesting statistic there Prole. But what can we do about it? I mean, USA second place? I say, not acceptable! But we need solutions. Anybody? Seriously, to take that number one position away from Romania, what can America do? Raise its median household income? Increase the percent of its children living in poor households? What's the answer? Of course, I'm being rhetorical here, while we already know the most expeditious tactic. It's tried and proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 The children need to take some personal responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The children need to take some personal responsibility. too many children, if you ask me. I saw some women with like 9 kids the other day. WTF? Are the orphanages empty already or something? She was really fat and ugly, too -- I can't believe she got laid at least 9 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 "This demands serious attention, I mean, when you include school lunch and and other stuff, these people are rolling in dough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 "This demands serious attention, I mean, when you include school lunch and and other stuff, these people are rolling in dough! Who's making the strawmen now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 "This demands serious attention, I mean, when you include school lunch and and other stuff, these people are rolling in dough! you've sure done your part prole. Good job comrade. Now pat yourself on the back and treat yourself to an organic veggie smoothie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 You know, I was impoverished with children, once. I had a wife and two kids and we lived on about 15-20k a year for about 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 Yeah, those homeless guys that camp out at highway exit ramps panhandling? They're like, millionaires, bro. It's a total scam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Oh, are we talking about homeless highway panhandlers? I thought we were talking about families with children surviving below the poverty line. You must be losing the argument. Unless you're saying that most impoverished children belong to the urban homeless (not true, btw, most impoverished children live in rural areas) Edited May 30, 2012 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 Oh boy. Settle down and try to breathe through your nose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Oh boy. Settle down and try to breathe through your nose... Yep, you're losing badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Right, Prole forgot about the tried and true argument that if they need food stamps and housing assistance, they can't possibly be poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Right, Prole forgot about the tried and true argument that if they need food stamps and housing assistance, they can't possibly be poor. I think the argument was that they aren't *as* poor, but you know, whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Right, Prole forgot about the tried and true argument that if they need food stamps and housing assistance, they can't possibly be poor. I think the argument was that they aren't *as* poor, but you know, whatever Of that if you increase their assistance, then the poverty stats that prole and j_b get to fling around don't show any difference (improvement). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 Yep, you're losing badly. It's America's poor children that are losing. Oh wait, they either don't exist statistically, are irrelevant because of "human nature", make bank when you throw in school lunch, don't matter 'cause I really, really (heart) living here, etc. etc. What's the debate again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 we should spend more $$ on education. It's not surprising that the most impoverished tend to be poorly educated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 It's America's poor children that are losing. Oh wait, they either don't exist statistically, are irrelevant because of "human nature", make bank when you throw in school lunch, don't matter 'cause I really, really (heart) living here, etc. etc. What's the debate again? I don't remember anybody saying any of those things. Are you having an imaginary conversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 America's poor children. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) SPRAY LIVES! GENE, CAN YOU SEE THIS?!?!?!?!?! Edited May 30, 2012 by jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 It's America's poor children that are losing. Oh wait, they either don't exist statistically, are irrelevant because of "human nature", make bank when you throw in school lunch, don't matter 'cause I really, really (heart) living here, etc. etc. What's the debate again? I don't remember anybody saying any of those things. Are you having an imaginary conversation? It's easier to make yourself look good if you make up both sides of the argument. It's the norm for prole and j-b. It's OK they (unlike the rest of us) 'get it', and only they "care". BTW, fuck your 4% contribution to children's charities, Prole feels it and his endless crusade on cc.com has so much more impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.