On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:35:49 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:40:29 -0700, Bill
wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Steve B wrote:
lid wrote in message
...
On 2011-09-14, Steve wrote:
I guess I am. I do not have some of the things mentioned here that
some
"poor" people have ...........
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html
I guess if I just gave more of my income in taxes...........
My guess would be that you have cable TV, air conditioning, computers,
but no video game system. Right or wrong?
i
Correct. I play 888 poker occasionally, and have $512,000 now, but only
in
play dollars. As for game systems, I just don't have the time. I do
play
pool from 15-60 minutes daily, though. Regulation table. And I'm not
going
to pay what they want for a game system or those games. I'll buy more
beer
brewing equipment or tools or materials.
Steve
very odd. I don't have AC, I don't have cable TV, I don't have a wide
screen TV, so I must be poor - the fact that I don't actually want these
things, or that I don't feel that they are worth the cost seems to not
matter? or is the heritage foundation saying that the poor really
aren't poor?
Same here. TV comes in via antenna to an elderly 21" CRT tv
I do have a stereo ($10 at a second hand store) DVD player ($5) VCR ($5)
TV in the bedroom (antenna), 3 computers, 2 laptops, no video games, no
games on my computer(s)
The last time I turned on a TV was...Friday IRRC. Stereo (FM) has been
running most of the time since.
Ive got a couple radios out in the shop.
I do have a swamp cooler. But I live in the desert. Thank Crom its
starting to cool off a little.
So Im poor as hell!
While I likely could *afford* the "luxuries" mentioned, I don't allow morons
to dictate where I spend my money. The very notion that TV is one of the
requirements for a happy life is nothing short of BS. I question the
sanity of *anyone* that permits an entity to sell them a signal that is
loaded with paid advertising----especially when the advertising is likely
better than the programming that it buys. I can't get interested in either
of them, quite frankly.
Do I have a TV?
Yep, I do. But, there's no way in hell I'm going to shell out more than
$30/month, endlessly, for the garbage they put on the tube these days.
I get two stations, one a PBS, the other, Fox. I watch 60 Minutes on the
computer, at my convenience.
I'm with you, Gunner. Our stereo (and listening to FM) gets the best
workout, and it's worth every penny it cost.
Harold
Don't get too used to your "free" broadcast tv/radio, broadcast is dying
since they have not found a new business model that will work in this
age of competition. You can readily see the death-twitching in the flood
of scam advertising (colon cleanser scam, work from home scam, payday
loans, etc.) that broadcasters would never have accepted in the past.
Now they are desperate for ad revenue and will accept anything, which
only drives away move viewers/listeners. The consolidation of broadcast
to a few big companies cut overhead and bought them some time, but soon
even that will not help ad revenues meet operating expenses and stations
will be going dark.
It would depend on the market. Here in Bakersfield area..we have a
number of good, strong local radio stations that dont advertise the
bull**** products. Neither do our 4 TV stations.
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".