You're forgetting there is a very large portion of the population that simply doesn't want to work
You don't think these people aren't working those types of jobs already? LOLGet another job? If you don't fill full time hours then you shouldn't qualify as in poverty and receive any of the handouts that go with it. And don't reply with there are no jobs. I work full time and could get a part time job at any fast food chain or retail store and these require no skills/education.
You're forgetting there is a very large portion of the population that simply doesn't want to work and sure doesn't want to work full time. 20 hours is fine to them because they get all their basics provided for them - food, clothing, shelter, cell phone, car/transportation, etc.
And then throw in 2 years of unemployment...why work? Work is for suckers.
This only encompasses a small part of people on the dole. While your assessment may be valid for some people, putting them all into one lazy group isn't fair nor is it productive spreading falsehoods and lies.
Get another job? If you don't fill full time hours then you shouldn't qualify as in poverty and receive any of the handouts that go with it. And don't reply with there are no jobs. I work full time and could get a part time job at any fast food chain or retail store and these require no skills/education.
This only encompasses a small part of people on the dole. While your assessment may be valid for some people, putting them all into one lazy group isn't fair nor is it productive spreading falsehoods and lies.
Aside from the definition of poverty being bullshit, being poor in the US is a choice. I thought all you liberals were pro-choice?
Aside from the definition of poverty being bullshit, being poor in the US is a choice. I thought all you liberals were pro-choice?
Saw three separate stories today about poverty rates going up according to the last census.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poverty-rate-rises-as-incomes-cnnm-3626085049.html?x=0&.v=3
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ar-high-in-2010-as-household-income-fell.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/22-percent-american-children-lived-poverty-last-142535015.html
My question is, what defines poverty? Is it strictly an income test? Seems to me that we need to define what basic necessities are and then go from there. If you are able pay for:
1. Food/Water
2. Shelter
3. Clothing
4. Medicine
then its my opinion that you cannot be defined as being in poverty. I hear of too many instances where people are given government assistance due to being called "low income" or "poverty stricken" or "less fortunate" etc. and are rolling around in an Escalade with 22" chrome rims whilst talking on a $400 cell phone ($80/month plan), wearing $90 designer jeans (with underwear hanging out), on their way to their $200K house so that they can meet the Schwan's man for their evening meal in front of the 60" plasma TV with full HD and movie channels.
I am sorry but these poverty stories are sad, yes, but they make me think we need to redefine poverty. If you are able to provide for the four basic needs I stated, you are not in poverty. If you are in need of assistance because you can't, we give you only enough to make sure you can provide what is in the list, nothing more. If you can afford of any of the extravagant things I mentioned, you are off assistance immediately. Is this asking too much?
During a recession, poverty rises. This is not rocket science!
WAIT! So you're saying taxation based on consumption will lead to poverty...Usually the US Census determines what they consider the be the income below which would be considered poverty. However, economic conditions and cost of living vary from place to place. Similarly some locations have higher gas tax than others, which is cause by runaway taxation. Overtaxation can cause poverty also. Just go buy gas in Chicago and then go buy some in tennessee or some other nearby states.
The government is often not the solution, but is the enemy of mankind and poverty.
A family of 4 making ~22K a year or less is living in poverty, I believe that is very close to the official definition.
To me that goes way beyond poverty and is firmly in the "poor as fuck" demo.
When I was single and had 2 roommates and still working my college job I pulled in about that much, I wasn't rich by any means. Trying to raise a family on that wage is a joke.
Just because people have indoor plumbing and electricity doesn't mean they aren't poor.
Bullshit. If they wanted to work a full time job they would. But then they'd lose a lot of their free shit. Why work? I'm describing the huge majority because there is little stopping the huge majority from going out and getting a full time job barring any physical ailments.
Democrats have effectively created this poverty trap to keep a large population on the handout to maintain a voter base of "where's my free shit democrats?"
$25 to $30K a year should buy you:
- $500 a month health insurance
- take care of $1,000 rent
- $9,000 in taxes
- food for,...
Wait, I am already over $25K?
HA! YOU ARE LIVING BEYOND YUR MEANS!!! LOL!!! HAHA-HHA!! LERN TA LIVE IN YUR MEANS!!! LOLOLOL!!! LOZER!! You are SUCKS a LOSER!!!!!!shift+1!!!!!
1 in 6 Americans are now in poverty
Clearly all Obama's fault
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Republicans are not saints in this regard either. Who do you think benefits the most when the poor are given handouts to go out and buy HDTVs, cars, and all the other consumer items that are hawked on us? Both parties have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and it's for very different reasons.
The poor live better off than they've earned. The rich get richer. And the middle class gets fucked by both ends.