DIYbanter - View Single Post - WILLARD MITT ROMNEY: "I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POOR!"

Hawke[_3_]

On 2/8/2012 7:08 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:39:55 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 8:03 PM, Schweik wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:40:40 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:27 AM, wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:22 am, Jeff wrote:

The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars,
microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things.

Neither did the rich. What is your point? Lots of things have changed,
usually for the better, over the past 112 years, even for the poor. The
poor of today are better off than the poor of 1900, just like everybody
else is. So what?

My point is that Hawke is wrong when he says there has been no
change. If you use constant standards, the poor today are well off.
But if you say the poor is the fifteen percent of the population that
has the lowest income, there is no way to change things. There will
always be people that make less than others.

Dan

Of course things have changed over the course of hundreds of years. But
someone living in a 20' trailer with a small flat screen and the other
things that come with it has all the modern conveniences from hot
running water to a microwave and a computer but he's still poor. Compare
him to a rich person in the mid 1800s who has non of those things but
has a lot of wealth. You could take a Texas cattle rancher of the late
1800s and he's got none of the things today's guy in the trailer has.
But he's got a big ranch house, thousands of acres of land, and all
kinds of livestock and equipment. He's got no micro, no computer, no hot
running water, and has an outhouse. So who is poorer?

No doubt the guy in the trailer is poorer than the guy with the big
cattle ranch but the guy in the trailer has all the modern conveniences.
It's like comparing apples to oranges. Point is you can have all of
today's modern conveniences but you are still poor and I think you know
what that means.

Hawke

So what you are telling us is the poor folks have housing, food,
entertainment, and all the other amenities to live and that is still
not enough?

In other words, it is a simple matter of seeing the rich man drive by
in his big car and feeling jealousy because he has the big black sedan
and all you have is the pickup truck.

cheers,

Schweik

Let me make it clear. A woman lives down the road from me in a 15'
trailer in which she has a TV, microwave, hot water, shower, toilet,
refrigerator, and heat. She may also have an old computer. she also has
an old truck. By my standards she is poor. she has hardly any money and
can't afford hardly anything beyond the absolute basics. I consider that
poor even though she has modern conveniences. But most of them came
built into the trailer. I don't know what you would call someone with
this little in life, well off? I call it having virtually nothing.

Hawke

But apparently she has enough money to but a TV, microwave and
computer. In other words, whether or not you consider her poor she did
in fact have disposable income.

All you are really saying is that she is poorer then you. Does that
mean that anyone with less money then you is poor?

Cheers

John B.

You guys aren't getting this. I'm saying the lady down the street from
me has nothing in the world but an old truck and a little travel
trailer. But since it's a fairly new trailer it has modern conveniences
like a microwave, a TV, a shower, maybe a computer, a phone, etc. So she
has most of today's things that make life better. But she is poor. She
has nothing but that little trailer even though it is equipped with
modern technology. It's not worth much money. So by American standards
she is poor. The point is you can have modern stuff and still be really
poor. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. It seems you
are saying that if you have a cell phone and a car that means you can't
be poor? I'm saying you sure can. A few modern conveniences doesn't make
one rich.

Hawke