Therein lies the rub.
All Liberals have to do when they want to increase social spending (which is constantly) is change the definition.
Voila - numbers increase!
Want to use the number of "poor" to bolster your argument?
Change the definition of "poor".
RE: All Liberals have to do when they want to increase social spending (which is constantly) is change the definition.
So, not having a cell phone is poor? Therefore, everyone has a right to an Obamaphone?
There are NO poor in America ... imo.
There is food enough, programs enough to buy/provide food ... there is housing available for everyone that needs it and there's money available.
Truthfully, the housing sucks, the food is crap and the money is little, but I could board myself up in a project and eat, be warm and sheltered, watch TV and wither away and die of old age (free health care comes with the deal), and I'll hate my life every day .... but I would not be "poor"
And if I was smart (and I like to think I am), Ill figure a way OUT of that forsaken lifestyle and better myself.
IN the USA, by definition, “Poverty” is a constant: The lower 20% of all incomes.
Doesn’t matter what you have, how well you live, etc. If you are in the lower 20% of US incomes, you are in “poverty.”