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

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.

That's pretty much what he's saying; he can't be saying anything else.

As Dan said above, if you define the poor as the bottom X percent of
income, whatever percentage "X" is, then there will always be poor
people. They might have everything Hawke-Ptooey thinks they "need", but
he'll still say they're poor and, more to the point, "doing badly."
Yes, if the poor are defined as those at or below the X percentage level
of income, then they'll still be poor...but they won't be doing badly.

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

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.

On Feb 8, 10:08*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.

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

How about the families that are splitting a can of soup five ways and
calling it dinner? How about the people who are making a choice
between feeding their kids or buyng their medications? How about the
kids wearing hand me down clothes that are three sizes too large
because it was a choice between paying the rent or buying a pair of
pants at the salvation army?

I have met some of these people, right here in "affluent" Northern New
Jersey. And no, I'm not going to post their names, addresses and
pictures for your edification. I will, however, suggest that you spend
a little time outside your own comfort zone, and see what's going on
around you. Get some perspective.

On 2/8/2012 8:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:08 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.

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

No one said there are no poor people. What has been said, factually, is
that the poor are not as materially poor in absolute terms as they once
were. Most poor people today live materially better lives than middle
class people did 100 years ago.

Poverty does not equal homelessness; homelessness has little or nothing
to do with poverty. Homeless people aren't homeless because they're
poor; they're homeless because they have mental defects and/or substance
abuse problems. The vast majority of poor people who have neither of
those problems are not homeless. The homeless are highly atypical of
poor people, let alone of the rest of us.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:07:06 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Feb 8, 10:08*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.

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

How about the families that are splitting a can of soup five ways and
calling it dinner? How about the people who are making a choice
between feeding their kids or buyng their medications? How about the
kids wearing hand me down clothes that are three sizes too large
because it was a choice between paying the rent or buying a pair of
pants at the salvation army?

I have met some of these people, right here in "affluent" Northern New
Jersey. And no, I'm not going to post their names, addresses and
pictures for your edification. I will, however, suggest that you spend
a little time outside your own comfort zone, and see what's going on
around you. Get some perspective.


The argument isn't about whether there are indigent people in the U.S,
the argument is what level of income does Hawke believe that "poor"
begins as he certainly has said that he is not talking about street
people and the homeless.



Cheers

John B.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:04:47 +0700, wrote:

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:07:06 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Feb 8, 10:08*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.

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

How about the families that are splitting a can of soup five ways and
calling it dinner? How about the people who are making a choice
between feeding their kids or buyng their medications? How about the
kids wearing hand me down clothes that are three sizes too large
because it was a choice between paying the rent or buying a pair of
pants at the salvation army?

I have met some of these people, right here in "affluent" Northern New
Jersey. And no, I'm not going to post their names, addresses and
pictures for your edification. I will, however, suggest that you spend
a little time outside your own comfort zone, and see what's going on
around you. Get some perspective.


The argument isn't about whether there are indigent people in the U.S,
the argument is what level of income does Hawke believe that "poor"
begins as he certainly has said that he is not talking about street
people and the homeless.



Cheers

John B.

And as a matter of fact..most street people and the vast majority of the
homeless are there VOLUNTARILY.

They are largely drug addicts, boozers or the mentally ill and are there
by CHOICE.

In America...anyone..anyone who is mentally above the IQ of a califlower
can enjoy decent shelter, food and entertainment with not much effort.

8 hours a day at MickyDs will supply them room, board and at the
least..a Tube to watch.

Will it get you a 2500 square foot home with granite countertops?
No.
Hard work will get you that.

Happens all over America

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 2/8/2012 8:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

How about the families that are splitting a can of soup five ways and
calling it dinner? How about the people who are making a choice
between feeding their kids or buyng their medications? How about the
kids wearing hand me down clothes that are three sizes too large
because it was a choice between paying the rent or buying a pair of
pants at the salvation army?

This is a caricature. It doesn't even have the status of true
anecdotes, let alone an accurate description of a big problem.


I have met some of these people, right here in "affluent" Northern New
Jersey.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. I don't believe you have met anyone who
has split a can of soup five ways and called it dinner. I don't believe
you have met people who have had to choose between food for their
children and medication.


And no, I'm not going to post their names, addresses and
pictures for your edification. I will, however, suggest that you spend
a little time outside your own comfort zone, and see what's going on
around you. Get some perspective.

Why don't you start from the perspective of telling the truth, rather
than taking extravagantly extremist and *untrue* political rhetoric and
treating it as evidence?

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:14:20 -0800, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 2/8/2012 8:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

How about the families that are splitting a can of soup five ways and
calling it dinner? How about the people who are making a choice
between feeding their kids or buyng their medications? How about the
kids wearing hand me down clothes that are three sizes too large
because it was a choice between paying the rent or buying a pair of
pants at the salvation army?

This is a caricature. It doesn't even have the status of true
anecdotes, let alone an accurate description of a big problem.


I have met some of these people, right here in "affluent" Northern New
Jersey.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. I don't believe you have met anyone who
has split a can of soup five ways and called it dinner. I don't believe
you have met people who have had to choose between food for their
children and medication.


And no, I'm not going to post their names, addresses and
pictures for your edification. I will, however, suggest that you spend
a little time outside your own comfort zone, and see what's going on
around you. Get some perspective.

Why don't you start from the perspective of telling the truth, rather
than taking extravagantly extremist and *untrue* political rhetoric and
treating it as evidence?

You're talking past each other with different definitions of "poor."
Late last year the Heritage Foundation (conservative) determined that
4% of those below the "poverty line" had no regular place to live and
had insufficient food. It looks like a good study. That's a big
number, actually, and right here in central NJ you can find plenty of
people who fit ranger's description. The church-run soup kitchen in
New Brunswick has plenty of them. My neighbor dishes out soup there
once or twice each week.

Want to see them? Get out from in front of your TV, go to your local
church (Presbyterian is good -- they're really into it) and ask where
they serve food to the homeless. As ranger says, getting out of your
comfort zone can be a real eye-opener.

Most of them are on drugs, or mentally disabled, or the victims of
abusive homes. They're not a pretty bunch. It's much more comforting
to ignore them, or to pretend they don't exist at all. They don't
always smell great, either.

The government agencies have gotten very good at counting the
homeless, and the number appears to be around 700,000 nationwide.
Heritage found that 1 person in 200 is permanently or temporarily
homeless in any given year. It's harder to put a number of how many
are hungry.

The government poverty-line numbers make for some dramatic headlines,
but you have to consider what they're measuring. The number in abject
poverty ought to be enough to raise concerns, without the window
dressing.

But it really doesn't. The average suburbanite can brush off and
ignore 700,000 or so people in a country of over 300 million. A drop
in the bucket.

Now you can return to your regularly-scheduled show, after the beer
commercial.

--
Ed Huntress

"Donn Messenheimer" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/2012 8:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. I don't believe you have met anyone who
has split a can of soup five ways and called it dinner. I don't believe
you have met people who have had to choose between food for their children
and medication.


I do know people who have lived in wrecked cars in the woods and pick up
roadside cans for cash. I left an outdoor faucet on all winter so they could
have fresh water, and put a good roof on the shack they slapped together.

Lets just politely say that their values and concepts of fiscal
responsibility are substantially different from mine.

Rice or pasta extend a can of Campbell's Chunky to two or three servings
without harming the taste.

There's plenty of free food available when grocery stores and restaurants
close at night. I did a survey to see if I could help a soup kitchen. Turns
out they only wanted money donated, picking up the food is too much work.

On Feb 9, 11:14*am, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:
On 2/8/2012 8:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

Fer crissakes, you can walk around pretty much any suburban
neighborhood on garbage day and pick up perfectly serviceable TVs,
microwaves and computers for free. If you want to believe that there
are no poor people in America, fine. Go right ahead. But seriously,
John, you may want to take a walk through a homeless shelter some day.
Yeah, they're all livin' the high life there.

How about the families that are splitting a can of soup five ways and
calling it dinner? How about the people who are making a choice
between feeding their kids or buyng their medications? How about the
kids wearing hand me down clothes that are three sizes too large
because it was a choice between paying the rent or buying a pair of
pants at the salvation army?

This is a caricature. *It doesn't even have the status of true
anecdotes, let alone an accurate description of a big problem.

I have met some of these people, right here in "affluent" Northern New
Jersey.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. *I don't believe you have met anyone who
has split a can of soup five ways and called it dinner. *I don't believe
you have met people who have had to choose between food for their
children and medication.

And no, I'm not going to post their names, addresses and
pictures for your edification. I will, however, suggest that you spend
a little time outside your own comfort zone, and see what's going on
around you. Get some perspective.

Why don't you start from the perspective of telling the truth, rather
than taking extravagantly extremist and *untrue* political rhetoric and
treating it as evidence?

Why don't you grow up. Come to the Englewood, NJ Center for Food
Action, and I'll be glad to introduce you to some of those people.
They most certainly are not "anecdotes," nore are they "extremists" or
"untrue." You really need to turn off Fox "news" and get outside more.

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