/dev/null Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 If you can't beat them, join them http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 If you can't beat them, join them http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income.
Dante Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income. lol. Yes if everyone made exactly the same it would be utopia
Fezmid Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income. No kidding! But we bring it upon ourselves by being lazy. Did you know that 40% of sick days are taken on Monday or Friday, giving them a 3-day weekend? Ridiculous.
meazza Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income. You want to reduce poverty, you have to redistribute income. People clearly don't know how to take care of themselves.
Booster4324 Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income. Anyone that responded to that in a serious fashion got hooked.
finknottle Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 Hispanics and blacks — traditionally solid Democratic constituencies — could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year. Talk about being thin-skinned!
Nanker Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 Maybe being poor should be made illegal. No, maybe being rich should be made illegal. Oh, Hell. Let's all be made illegal. Then we can move to Canada and seek refugee status.
Keukasmallies Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 So ...I'm thinkin' that having half the people under the median income is just about how it came to be known as the median income. Having half the people under the median income isn't a bad thing if the median income is a living wage, is it? Don't forget, many people are content to make less $, do less work, and enjoy less hassle.
IDBillzFan Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 (edited) Maybe being poor should be made illegal. No, maybe being rich should be made illegal. Oh, Hell. Let's all be made illegal. Then we can move to Canada and seek refugee status. Or we could just stay here in the US illegally and help ourselves to all the free stuff we give to the rest of the illegal population. In all seriousness, I found it interesting that I had to get all the way to the second-to-last paragraph of this article to find out what, specifically, qualifies a person as "living in poverty." Turns out you're living in poverty if you're a family of four with an earned income of about $22,000/year. There's a quick way to fix this bad news: lower the income amount, or increase the family amount, and presto, the number of people living in poverty has gone down. Now, you may find that to be a bit ridiculous, but it is any less ridiculous than trying to convince America that families who earn over $250,000/year are, somehow, millionaires? Or convincing people that we can now measure economic success by counting the number of jobs that were "saved?" It's all semantics. Change the qualifiers, and announce to everyone that the number of people living in poverty has decreased for the first time in eight years. Y'know, when you break it all down, this running-the-country thing is really pretty simple. Edited September 12, 2010 by LABillzFan
whateverdude Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 (edited) Depends on your definition of poor. Our poor is Ethiopia rich. Standard of living is a different story, we are losing that battle! Edited September 12, 2010 by whateverdude
GG Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income. Only one half? Odd. I would have thought the number would have been bigger than that with the elimination of the middle class and such.
Booster4324 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Only one half? Odd. I would have thought the number would have been bigger than that with the elimination of the middle class and such. You are funny lately, but why?
Booster4324 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Gallows humor? I get that. Is it really that bad?
GG Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 I get that. Is it really that bad? Things are peachy. At least that's what I heard at the last press conference. And Trent Edwards is an NFL QB.
Booster4324 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Things are peachy. At least that's what I heard at the last press conference. And Trent Edwards is an NFL QB.
/dev/null Posted September 13, 2010 Author Posted September 13, 2010 And Trent Edwards is an NFL QB. Yeah but that's not Chan's fault. Chan inherited Trent from the previous administration
KD in CA Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 It is truly a shame that in a country as rich, powerful, resourceful, and great as America, we still have half the people earning under the median annual income. I wonder what % of politicians would repeat that with conviction if handed the line by a speech writer. Having half the people under the median income isn't a bad thing if the median income is a living wage, is it? If the median income isn't a "living wage", than someone needs to refine their definition of "living wage". Preferably to exclude satellite TV and ipods.
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 I wonder what % of politicians would repeat that with conviction if handed the line by a speech writer. I really thought I'd get a bite from conner, Dave, Hedd, or PastaJoe by now...
Recommended Posts