America Has The Richest Poor In The World

Under our current regime, anyone who is not actively looking for employment is no longer counted as unemployed, such as when going to school or learning a new vocation or simply pursuing Happiness.

 

Yet, anyone in any at-will employment State can still apply for unemployment compensation. If it solves for official poverty, would they be worse off?

 

I hate the pursuit of happiness BS. It's property. The left just doesn't understand Lockean views. Jefferson plagiarized that.

 

From one perspective, securing the Blessings of Liberty is a form of pursuing Happiness.

 

Yes, but the left thinks that means they have the freedom to not work and get paid by the taxpayers. ie. happiness.

I always refer to property because the left doesn't believe in private property rights.

 

From my perspective, it could mean actually solving poverty instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty for over thirty years.

 

A BELOW 1% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE??????

LOWEST RATES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS:

4.4% 10/2006 Bush
4.4% 12/2006 Bush
4.4% 03/2007 Bush
4.4% 05/2007 Bush
4.5% 09/2006 Bush
4.5% 02/2007 Bush
4.5% 04/2007 Bush

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

 

And, what is your point? We have also been paying for a War on Poverty for over thirty years, including the years you listed.

Are you claiming we can not improve on our record in modern times?

 

We will never be proud of not giving to the sick and poor and will always be ashamed of not doing so.

To eternity and past that, too.

 

You left out the old. In 2010 we spent $3.5 trillion dollars. The poor, the sick, and the old received $1,984.0 TRILLION of that $3,5 trillion. That is 57% of our total spending. That is $11,534.88 for every person NOT WORKING in the US. AT a cost to EVERY working person of $15,030.00.

I'd say NOWHERE in the world now approaches nor has EVER approached what we do for the poor, the sick, and the old!

 

Why do you believe those monies spent do not provide for the general welfare by engendering some multiplier effect?

 

Richest poor in the world, yes

just google "The People of Walmart"

 

Poor can be a relative term in one of the world's largest economies, where people of wealth can purchase yachts and tax exemptions for them, almost at the same time.

 

The thread is "RICHEST," not most attractive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

No TV, No Computer, no money!


1,6 million children in the USA are homeless. The number of homeless people in the US has increased by 38 % during the last four years.

"Hunger in America exists for nearly 49 million people. That is 1 in 6 of the U.S. population – including more than 1 in 5 children."
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america.aspx

I don´t want to be poor in the US. They let them starve to death (otherwise, it would be evil socialism, I know... ). In Germany, you have the right to own TV and live in a flat.

Watch the job and homeless Americans:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4opKKh255Y&feature=player_embedded"]Von Arbeitslosen und Obdachlosen in den USA - YouTube[/ame]​

 

Why is there any homelessness in any "Right to Work" State?

 

No TV, no computer, ??? I would think a homeless person should have other priorities, such as a bed, a roof over your head, access to clean water and nutritious food. If you're homeless and you beg for money to buy crack cocaine, I say screw you. YOU DESERVE TO DIE, SINCE YOU'RE KILLING YOURSELF ANYWAYS.

 

Would we have as much homelessness, if all a person without an income (that would normally be derived from employment) needed to do, was apply for unemployment compensation when that person could claim to be unemployed?

 

The FACTS are that less than 1% of the USA children, IN POVERTY, go hungry. The rest are, "overnourished." That means FAT!

And that is children IN POVERTY, meaning that well over 99% of USA's children are well fed to overly well fed.

The majority of the USA's "poverty stricken," own 2 cars, a house with a garage and more than 2 bedrooms, cellphones, color TV's, computers, and they wear designer brand clothes.

The only,,,,,,,,ONLY,,,,,,,,,,homeless people in the USA are mentally damaged and are unaware of how to help themselves, but the govt is NOT allowed to restrict their freedom so they wander back into the streets.

And 49 million people in America are not hungry. They receive food stamps and are fed by the government. $1,984 trillion of our spending went to the poor, the sick and the old. Only $1, 516 trillion went to the operation of the government. 57% of our spending went to entitlements. The USA is the best possible place to be poor in all of human history.

 

Whitewashing!


Here is the truth:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

 

From my perspective, it is only alleged conservatives who have a problem solving official poverty for real persons, when artificial persons can get corporate welfare that even pays multimillion dollar bonuses.

 

Your opinion is whitewash. My opinion is that your "expert" site is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and massively biased.
And that we, as a nation, do spend over 57% of out total expenditures taking care of unfortunates, is a FACT. If HALF our population was poor and needy, we'd be spending $12,621. USD on each needy person. And since far less than half our population is poor and needy, we ARE spending a great deal more than $12,621 on each person that is.

Amazing how foreigners that cannot take care of their own finances know so much the US and have so many recommendations on how we could be as good as them. But no thanx, we prefer to remain the best nation the world has ever known and envied by the rest of the world to the point of them believing nonsense.

 

My guess is you ain't one of the poor.

So being poor is a relative condition in America (when compared to the third world) and the rich can thank their lucky stars that it is relative considering the wealth disparity.

 

Yea, I read through all that. And most of the information is conjecture. Not real numbers.

Here is an example of the "information" in that article:

With a 40 hour week, a family of 4 with one minimum wage earner would earn $15,080, only 69 percent of the poverty level. The minimum wage level is not indexed to inflation, which means that the real benefits will be eroded by inflation.

Looking through that article, it is full of information like that. It is complete at total nonsense. Nowhere does it actually give numbers, but it makes speculations how many would be in poverty based upon things like employment figures and what amount of income people at minimum wage make, and where they sit when compared to the rest of the nation.

Just that one blurb is rather telling. Tell me, where in this country does a family of 4 with a single person making minimum wage not qualift for things like food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, and a slew of other government benefits that effectively raise their income above the poverty numbers given?

This is the problem with almost every "study" into the number of homeless and starving kids in the country. They are not real numbers, they are speculations and extrapolations based upon a great many things. And ultimately, all meaningless.

 

we are the one nation that has fat poor people.

Those people who we talk about are living on the street or are starving either have mental problems or an addiction of some type. Those are the people that when they get their aid they spend it on drugs or booze and end up living on the street which represents a minority.