I never quite understood the fetish for poverty than many Christian groups seem to have.
Having bad character is a detriment to a person’s life, too.
Let’s ban people thinking others have bad character.
In my honest opinion, and please, one who is more versed in neurology correct me if I am wrong. This just sounds like bunk science contrived to make the poor into hapless victims...is that correct?
|
So is laziness.
So now we have perpetual “victims”? A socialist Democrats dream come true! This is nothing more than a call for a permanent nanny-state.
|
“Poverty poisons people...women and minorities hardest hit...”
Krugman. As far as this junk is worth reading.
reading the NY Slimes will make anyone less intelligent — the stress hormones are elevated by so many stupid statements and ignorant rants.......
I never quite understood the fetish for poverty than many Christian groups seem to have.
I have to think the poverty rate in the good ole USA would be lower if we quit importing a million poor people a year...
What crap. Poverty made me work my butt off not to be poor because I hated it. As they say...
I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor and believe me, rich is better.
Stupidity is poison. Especially when it comes from places where it is supposed to be intelligent.
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers -- to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million perÂsons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of houseÂholds equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various govÂernment reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actuÂally 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.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overÂcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average 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.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufÂficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
Our kids grew up “poor”, but current American standards, and are doing great. Krugman is something...
i dont think there is any denying that
BADNESS CAN BE BAD FOR YA.....
UNLESS YER THE BADDEST OF EM ALL
THEN I DON’T KNOW IF ITS GOOD OR BAD....
PROB. BAD ANYWAYS..
i reserve the balance of my time.
Fat chance of that happening, thanks to Lyndon Bird's Great Society and the endorsement of that egregious error by his successors.
The man who decades ago sat at the head of the table has been replaced by welfare checks and food stamps, while the mother has become an 'ho.
I’ve known this for years. That’s why I’ve always HAD A JOB, to avoid being poisoned. /sarc
Consider this nugget from the column:
And governments that set their minds to it can reduce poverty. In Britain, the Labor government that came into office in 1997 made reducing poverty a priority — and despite some setbacks, its program of income subsidies and other aid has achieved a great deal. Child poverty, in particular, has been cut in half by the measure that corresponds most closely to the U.S. definition.
Note the slick transposition of the UK and US poverty rate for children. Note that, contrary to surface appearances, Mr. Krugman makes no assertion as to the relative rates, but merely says the UK rate has been cut in half previous to the previous rate. Those who read Krugman will recognize the characteristic pattern of his deception. I will bet you dollars to donuts the UK rate of child poverty is higher or comparable to the US rate, in gross terms, which is why Krugman studiously avoids making the comparison.
BS times BS times BS equals complete and utter BS.