Reply With Quote
I'd like to see some facts on the super-rich in this country. How do they compare with super-rich people in other countries. Why didn't ultra right wing heritage come out with these statistics? Are any of the publishers of heritage "poor"?
More carbs (and corn syrup as sweetners for food you wouldn't normally think would need sweetners) than protein.
Your "peasant food" diet, fwiw, is what we all should go back to eating. You're absolutely right about it being the best food you can eat.
I'd like to see some facts on the super-rich in this country. How do they compare with super-rich people in other countries. Why didn't ultra right wing heritage come out with these statistics? Are any of the publishers of heritage "poor"?
Not sure what you're saying here, are you suggesting that the poor, fat people are victims? They're not, they're flat-out consuming too many calories, and it's by choice, no one's forcing them to consume twice as many calories as they need.
There are plenty of low calorie, inexpensive foods in the stores.
Portion control.
The poor aren't buying junk food because it's all they can afford. They're buying it because that it is all they know to eat.
Go observe families shopping at Wal-Mart sometime. The poor aren't loading up on cheap pasta and SPAM. They're loading up on snack chips, soda, donuts, pizza, candy...
What you have is a massive swath of the population that never learns how to make responsible decisions.
what would be the point of that since politics revolves around "helping" the poor?
As far as super-rich, from a liberal perspective any millionaire will do. That person is first generation rich, married, business owner, lives in a $300k house, drives an inexpensive vehicle, and never paid more than $40 for a watch.
What the report failed to mention is what percentage of the poor that lives in substandard housing, what percentage lives in a district with a higher that average crime rate, what percentage know a gang member, what percentage don't live with both parents, what percentage go to substandard high schools etc.
The fact is, it's not fun to be poor in America. Sure, they're rich compared to the poor in Haiti, but that's beyond the point.
There's an economic concept called layers of necessity, which states that how much you need depends on how much you and the people around have. So in Haiti, you might not need a car and a job that pays 10 bucks an hour. But in the US, if you don't have those things, you can't function as a normal citizen.
Let's deconstruct this a little bit:
"Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes."
Another way of saying the same thing is that 43% of people who own their own homes are considered "poor." Is this true? Possibly, although it seems a little hard to believe. But part of it depends on what we're considering "poor." The number of people in this country who survive off of of minimum wage jobs (15-20K a year) is high, and the only way to afford a home on that is through low income housing options - many large cities have properties that people can own and gain equity but can only be sold back to the city, not on the open market. Could 43% of people who are "poor" own this type of home? Maybe. But so what? Does that make them any less poor?
The comparison to other countries is interesting, but not terrible useful, and the implication here seems to be that it means there aren't any "poor" people in America.
The reality is the disparity of wealth in this country and in this world is sickening.
Just a quick Google search came up with this reference:
"Pioneering study on The World Distribution of Household Wealth by the World Ins ute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) was launched on Tuesday 5 December 2006. It shows richest two percent Own half of world wealth. The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."
http://www.chowrangi.com/richest-2-o...ld-wealth.html
why do you hate america?
Sincerely,
Joe Republican
Are there poor people in countries such as Switzerland, Sweeden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Austria, NZ . . . ?
Small, geneous, technically advanced countries tend to have much lower Gini coefficients.
You mean racially geneous?
Man . . . why can't people get along?
Government definition was used.
Link?The number of people in this country who survive off of of minimum wage jobs (15-20K a year) is high
link?, and the only way to afford a home on that is through low income housing options - many large cities have properties that people can own and gain equity but can only be sold back to the city, not on the open market. Could 43% of people who are "poor" own this type of home? Maybe. But so what? Does that make them any less poor?
The implication is that our poor are housed, with air conditioning, amenities, and food.The comparison to other countries is interesting, but not terrible useful, and the implication here seems to be that it means there aren't any "poor" people in America.
why should I care if someone makes more than I do? The opportunities for a minority like me from a poor family have been tremendous.The reality is the disparity of wealth in this country and in this world is sickening.
misleading, but again we are not promised equal or near equal wealth. We are just promised freedom and the pursuit of happiness.Just a quick Google search came up with this reference:
"Pioneering study on The World Distribution of Household Wealth by the World Ins ute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) was launched on Tuesday 5 December 2006. It shows richest two percent Own half of world wealth. The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."
http://www.chowrangi.com/richest-2-o...ld-wealth.html
I challenge you to take risk and state your own opinions.
It compares favorable to what was considered middle class not long ago.
yes crime is a problem. Only poor people have divorced parents? I'm with you on schooling, vouchers are the answer IMO., what percentage lives in a district with a higher that average crime rate, what percentage know a gang member, what percentage don't live with both parents, what percentage go to substandard high schools etc.
fun is not a product materialistic things. btw, where does it say we owe people fun? Fun is a product of individual values. In my experience, poor people are a lot more fun than rich. Rich is way too stuffy for my taste.The fact is, it's not fun to be poor in America. Sure, they're rich compared to the poor in Haiti, but that's beyond the point.
the study showed housing, a/c, entertainment, food, etc... what beyond that is normal?There's an economic concept called layers of necessity, which states that how much you need depends on how much you and the people around have. So in Haiti, you might not need a car and a job that pays 10 bucks an hour. But in the US, if you don't have those things, you can't function as a normal citizen.
It's hard to believe because you're misrepresenting the cited statistic. Saying "43% of the poor own homes" is not the same as saying "43% of home owners are poor." The population comprising the home-owning and non-home-owning poor is not the same population as poor and non-poor homeowners.
Wow, thread took off real good with out BoboteaDumper.
You must be joking.
Who said anything about hating America?
I LOVE America! I think it's great that people that get paid 7 bucks an hour are considered poor. The fact is, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
But you must know that America is an imperfect nation. Criticizing America doesn't weaken my patriotism, it strengthens it. John Adams once said (i'm paraphrasing) that to be a good citizen is to be an open and honest critic.
You love America like a three year old loves their mommy. Mommy is perfect and anyone who says mommy is wrong in any way is bad. I love America like an adult does - I understand its strengths and its weaknesses and I love it, warts and all.
[QUOTE=2centsworth;2682766]
I'm with you on schooling, vouchers are the answer IMO.
QUOTE]
The answer to the schooling problem is more funding from the government.
Vouchers is just a sneaky little way to undermine separation of church and state.
lighten up I am joking. You usually get the "why do you hate america?" question from one of the resident conservatives. I am not a conservative.
[quote=herzlman;2685579]Money doesn't translate into success. That's where you and I differ.
[QUOTE=2centsworth;2685598]So that begs a couple of questions. How do you recruit and retain good people without competetive pay? How do you maintain facitlities and resources without more resources?
I am married to a fantastic teacher who is compensated fairly for her experience. She chooses to stay even though she has less than 10% support of the parents who walked into her office. She see's good teachers leave because they are fed up because of the lack of support from the district and parents. Yet they are the one's who get all of the blame.
[quote=George Gervin's Afro;2685647]Education is a two way street. It's the students and the lack of support from the parents that's hurting education. Throwing money at the system will not change a parent's motivation.
SORRY TO GEORGE GERVIN'S AFRO: I'm sorry, I guess I should have realized you were joking. It's just that this is a subject that I am very passionate about, and I actually know people who are stupid enough to say something like that.
To 2cents: how would vouchers change a parent's motivation? They wouldn't. The solution isn't to get kids out of the poor public schools, it's to fix the public schools themselves. And how do you do that? By providing more funding so you can get better teachers, better textbooks, and nicer classrooms and materials.
Vouchers don't fix the problem, only the symptoms.
Throwing money at the public schools does not fix them. That didn't work in the 1970's, and it doesn't work today.
The reasons it doesn't work are cultural.
The lesser cultural problem is corruption. The culture in some school district is that schools exist to provide the family and friends of leaders with sinecures. Relatively little of the funding makes its way into the classroom. For all its faults, NCLB does a decent job of rooting out and shutting down those structures.
The greater cultural problem is systemic collapse. A significant fraction of students in high-poverty areas come to school incapable of learning regardless of the available resources because their home lives are utter chaos and ruin. Thinking that extra school funding is going to reverse that problem is like thinking that gold-plating your bailing bucket is going to keep your ship from sinking.
Vouchers also don't work because there are too few parents in low-performing public schools who care about their children's education to use them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions