You really are a blind jerk. You have spammed us with this utter rubbish three times now Gaar. What inane, philistine drivel it is, written by ignorant Neanderthals.
What about the Wall St Bankers that refused to cooperate with the Treasury if their obscene pay checks were to be limited? They couldn't give a damn about the US and its people; they just care about their own pockets. Kiss my arse Gaar, the corporate crooks and the grotesque filthy swine in the form of the Dems and the GOP are going down as fast as the economy, and when the shit hits the fan there will be nowhere these animals can hide....Nowhere! And you can count on it Gaar. Everything I have learnt is coming to pass precisely as expected and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. The American dream, when the US with 6% of the world's population consumed 50% of the world's commodities is over. The foundations on which the dream was built-- the power of US industry and its banks are no more. The US is a tattered impoverished caricature of its former self, as the institutions that have stood for decades collapse one after the other. PS Holly, must you insist on flogging a dead horse On Oct 17, 8:18 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm > > For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an > inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and > reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons > classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While > real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope > and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions > that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations > ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth > (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American > household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1 > > The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census > Bureau, taken from various government reports: > > Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. > The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census > Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, > and a porch or patio. > Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By > contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population > enjoyed air conditioning. > Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two- > thirds have more than two rooms per person. > The average poor American has more living space than the average > individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities > throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in > foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) > Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two > or more cars. > Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over > half own two or more color televisions. > Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable > or satellite TV reception. > Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a > stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. > As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically > undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and > minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, > in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually > consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average > protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor > children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on > average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who > stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II... > > ...Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has > a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and > dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or > satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able > to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not > overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had > sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential > needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far > from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal > activists, and politicians... > > On Oct 16, 2:15 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 16, 7:05 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Many times that is true, but it's also true that many of those 'woking > > > poor" can no longer afford the electrical power to make those shiny > > > toys operate. Rather funny, isn't it? > > > Link please... > > > This is just holly making shit up again, I am sure. > > > He will not be able to provide ANY empirical evidence for such a > > statement...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
