Say Anything Blog

It’s absolutely because of media bias.  You can’t hear stories day after day about the so-called bad economy and not have it take effect.

In 1992 Bill Clinton ran against the worst economy in the last 50 years.  The economy was actually doing quite well in 1992 with GDP growth of 5.9 and 6.7 in the 3rd and 4th quarters. 

In 1996 Clinton ran for election on the booming economy.  It was doing well but at 4.7 and 7.0 for the 3rd and 4th quarter it really didn’t justify the distinction for the “worst economy in the last 50 years.”

The press of course went right along with the clinton campaign.

Also when GW Bush ran for President in 2000 he was accused of talking down the economy when he correctly identified the economy as slowing.

It’s absolutely because of media bias.

Right---because Clear Channel, Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, Bertlemann, and General Electric are all owned and controlled by minorites.

Oh, wait…

Right—because Clear Channel, Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, Bertlemann, and General Electric are all owned and controlled by minorites.

Oh, wait…

What is your point supposed to be?

For example Michael Eisner the outgoing (gone?) chairman of Disney/abc was a huge Democrat doner.  I’ve heard the same about the other guys but even so it’s the guys that run the news departments that set the agenda of the news, not the stockholders.  (except perhaps Murdoch).

What I’ve always wondered was why the corporate types allowed Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw to report in such a way that ratings are half of what they were when those guys took over the anchor seats.

Finally the proof is in the distorted news they put out, not about who owns them.

While media coverage is certainly an influence, I think that too much can be made of it.  Ultimately, when it comes to questions like this, people are going to respond based on their own conditions.  The unemployment factor is a bit misleading, as the quality and compensation of available jobs isn’t quantified in the overall employment figure.  Let’s say a Detroit parts supplier lays off an employee who goes to work at Taco Bell: yes, he’s employed, but his economic conditions are significantly impacted.

Frankly I don’t believe that that is really the case.  Obviously there are examples of people that are doing worse but in general people are doing quite well and getting better.

I am posting a link that I’ve used on my website showing median income.  We’ve had a small shrinkage in men in constant dollars while we’ve gotten over the recession (stock market crash, and 9/11) while women have done pretty well.  Things aren’t getting worse.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p05ar.html

The nation has had 4.3 million people slip into poverty and 5 million lose their health insurance. For these people and those in similar conditions “recovery is not something in which they are participating. This reality makes people economically gloomy.

Because of unreasonable expectations.  Everyone thinks they should have more money.  In fact it’s very easy to spend more than you have.

Combine that with all of the negative press.  Perhaps you heard of someone who lost his/her job.  It’s easy to project this onto the country as a whole when it’s just not the truth.

The biggest thing is the news that’s not covered and how it’s covered.  They’ll talk about job growth of 100,000 in a month as being bad.  They don’t even report it when they revise the projection to 150,000.  They don’t report that the unemployment rate is about as low as it ever gets.  They don’t report that the GDP is showing good growth. 

When all you hear is bad news that’s what you report.

Why do they report bad news all of the time.  They don’t actually, they reported good news only when Bill Clinton was President.

Obviously there are examples of people that are doing worse but in general people are doing quite well and getting better.

Then why are they saying the opposite?

I know alot of people who are unemployed. They are the same people who have been unemployed for the last 15 years. They are always boohooing about no job, but they never look for work. I have helped a few of them get hired at different jobs and they never hang. But let that welfare check be late and they are all pissed off.

WOOF said, The nation has had 4.3 million people slip into poverty and 5 million lose their health insurance.

Just so people understand: “poverty" in America. As for 5 million losing their health insurance - prove it. Note: 5 million more without insurance does not mean that they lost it.

modern instances asked, Then why are they saying the opposite?

That’s exactly what many of us have been asking.

"4.3 million people slip into poverty and 5 million lose their health insurance.”

What are their names?

When Clinton was President was the economic news was good.

Now

the rate of job growth is far below that of past recoveries.  While most industries are adding jobs, they are adding fewer than expected based on past experience.  Why then is the unemployment rate so low?  First, unemployment remains well above the 4.0% level achieved in 2000, so while 5.0% is a historically low rate, it is not representative of a “full-employment” job market.

Second, the share of the population in the labor force is still depressed relative to its pre-recession level.  In June, this rate ticked down one-tenth of a point to 66.0%, the same level as one year ago, and down 1.2 points from its level at the start of the recession (March 2001).  Note that this rate is down even more than average for adults age 25-54 (-1.5 points) and college graduates (-1.8 points), two groups for whom we would expect rising participation rates at this stage of recovery.  The lack of labor force participation among people we would expect to be working suggests that slack remains in the job market, and that measured unemployment, at 5%, is probably painting too rosy a picture of job market tautness.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20050708

Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row
Overall, the median household income remained stagnant at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to 12.5 percent—35.9 million people—last year, from 12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline, and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million children lived in poverty.

As expected, the number of people without health insurance grew last year, to 45 million—an increase to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent.
“>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html

WOOF said, When Clinton was President was the economic news was good.

The economic reality was often the close to what it is now...and yet the news was better under Clinton.

But keep on trumpeting your economic defeatism despite the good news WOOF. Your chicken little, the sky is falling commentary is amusing.

The sky is not falling Henny Penny.
Bush policy is just not taking the economy forward for average Americans.
With a stimulating monetary policy from the fed, huge tax breaks for the very wealthy, and a tremendous expansion of gov’t jobs, the middle class is shrinking.

Watch out for Foxy Loxy.

The sky is not falling Henny Penny.

Your comments would suggest otherwise.  At least when you talk about certain subjects.

Bush policy is just not taking the economy forward for average Americans.

How?  Define “average Americans”.

...huge tax breaks for the very wealthy...

Define “very wealthy”.  The tax breaks went to people who actually pay them; namely: the middle class and above.  Is the middle class “very wealthy” to you?

Also, why would you include a tax break of any kind as an example of “not taking the economy forward”?

...the middle class is shrinking.

Proof?  I know that we are losing some of the middle class into the top brackets, but I don’t see that as a negative.

Watch out for Foxy Loxy.

What does this mean?  Just feel like rhyming names today?

Woof, they changed the bar… they’re playing a game of reverse limbo.

1998 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Family of four 4 - $16,450

in 2005:

2005 Poverty Level Guidelines
Family of 4 -$19,350

Yes, yes, I know there’s an increase for inflation, but $3,000 over seven years?

Oh and WOOF: you can also add a population increase into your, “The nation has had 4.3 million people slip into poverty and 5 million lose their health insurance.” claim.

Woof, they changed the bar… they’re playing a game of reverse limbo.

Good points Seth!  Also add the effect of raising the federal minimum wage.  It went up from $4.25 to $5.15 during the Clinton years which would affect the numbers of people in “poverty” in pure dollar numbers. *to be noted: raising the minimum wage doesn’t necessarily increase buying power so the higher numbers may be offset by a weaker dollar with less buying power. The last increase in the federal minimum wage was in 1997.

I’m not sure WOOF has a defensible point anymore (at least he is incapable of defending his argument).

If you paid attention to the story of Chicken Little you would know that in the end Foxy Loxy leads the barnyard animals to his den an eats them.

Poverty numbers are straight US Census stuff.
Since Bush has been in office a larger % of Americans are in poverty. An increase of about 2% of the population.

Seth the $ poverty line is largely based on the Consumer Price Index.

Right on, Brother Carrick!!! You testify!!! Can I have an AMEN!!!

WOOF:

Seth the $ poverty line is largely based on the Consumer Price Index.

Which is why it is so completely misleading and is a useless statistic---both during the Clinton years and now.  Simply put, it is based on a intellectually-bankrupt definition.  It should be based on the level of need (aka poverty).  By being based on a dollar amount, people with three bed room homes and two cars make it into the category of poverty.

Remember my comment about leftists and bitter rhetoric?  I think we’ve just seen more of it.

Those living below the poverty line are the people who can’t afford to have their Escalades and Hummers detailed unless they skip meals?

Sadly, this is closer to the truth than you may realize.  The average POOR American lives equitably with the AVERAGE European… Not average POOR European… AVERAGE European.

The majority of the poor in the US are poor due to poor decisions that they make.  They buy stuff on Credit then don’t realize the financial impact of the INTEREST they pay.  They want nice stuff, RIGHT NOW! So they borrow against what they will earn.

They use the sin of ENVY to justify the poor purchasing decision, then they blame the “EVIL RICH” on the fact that they can not get ahead, or can’t put food on the table… but the nice new SUV sure looks nice…

The liberal mind seems to fear Christians, but true Christians know that Envy is a SIN.  Living beyond your means is a SIN.  Now, I’m not Christian, but living SMART, without these “SIN’s” makes a lot of sense to me. 

When we worry more about what other people have, we loose the focus on the direction our own life is headed.

Carrick thanks for exposing the fact that poverty does not exist in this nation.
Those living below the poverty line are the people who can’t afford to have their Escalades and Hummers detailed unless they skip meals?

The average POOR American lives equitably with the AVERAGE European

Maybe if you are including countries like Bosnia , Albania, Croatia, Ukraine , Russia.
Does not apply to industrialized Europe.

Does not apply to industrialized Europe.

Simply not true Woof.

From the Heritage Foundation

Better Off Than Europeans, Japanese
The average “poor” American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

“Poor” Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American.

The Census Bureau counts as “poor” anyone with “cash income” less than the official poverty threshold, which was $12,675 for a family of four in 1989. The Census completely disregards assets owned by the “poor,” and does not even count much of what, in fact, is income. This is clear from the Census’s own data: low income persons spend $1.94 for every $1.00 in “income” reported by the Census. If this is true, then the poor somehow are getting $0.94 in additional income above every $1.00 counted by the Census. Indeed, the gap between spending and the Census’s count of the income of the “poor” has grown larger year by year till, now, the Census measurement of the income of poor persons no longer has any bearing on economic reality.

From a Fox New Story:

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 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 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 European cities. (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 a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

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 isn’t 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, activists and politicians.

“Poor” is a relative term…

On more than one occasion, WOOF, you have proven to be intellectually honest.  Do that again here.  Poverty is not a problem for the federal government to solve.  It is a problem for the individual to solve.  If *you* are poor, then get training in an area that you can earn a decent living in… then keep learning.  The vast majority of the poor are in their situation by CHOICE.  Not the Governments choice, their own choice. 

Some would choose to illustrate things like the Enron scandal as an indication of how the rich keep “the poor” poor, but this type of criminal deceit accounts for less than 1% of the nations “poor”.  Furthermore, the poor in this country live at a higher standard than do most of the worlds average citizens.  Very, VERY few of American poor have the slightest clue what “POOR” really is.  Even American homeless live and eat better than a huge portion of the populace of the planet. 

The adage about teaching a man to fish is rather apropos to this discussion.  The poor do NOT need additional “handouts” they need to learn a skill, then put that skill to work for them.

Seth:  Thanks for the great comment.  One thing to add is that if you earn under about $20k, on average under McBushHitler’s nefarious tax reform, you end up getting money back instead of paying taxes.  I have pointed out that this is a “bottom up” welfare plan, since it puts the money directly in the hands of the needy, rather than keeping more bureaucrats employed.  It also rewards based on effort, since if you don’t work, you get nothing.  In other words, a reward-based welfare system.  Just the thing you’d expect a Harvard MBA to come up with.

WOOF:

Carrick thanks for exposing the fact that poverty does not exist in this nation.

Let’s see if you can grasp it if I break it down this way:

The Bureau of Census definition of poverty is nonsensical, because it is based on a monetary baseline, rather than on a needs level.  A true measure of poverty would be defined according to some agreed to standards based on need. Quite obviously, the current [broken] standard is placing people, including those who own their own home and drive more than one vehicle, into a category that they rightfully do not belong.

There!  Simple as pie.  Any questions?

How do they do this without going into disasterous [SIC] debt?

THAT’S THE POINT!  They must have some other source of income.  Most Government paid stuff is not counted.  They either have side jobs that they do not report, or some other source of income…

This is all painted with a broad brush… To get more specific, for the small minority of the poor who are poor through no fault of their own, I FULLY support assistance.  I would like the source of that assistance to be private, first, and Government second.

For those that make bad choices and end up poor, I am less inclined to help them, but I acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes and can accept that one or two dumb moves may not be an indication of a habit.  But, if you are willing to correct your mistakes and learn from them, I am willing to offer assistance to help you get back on your feet.  For those that think that they are “OWED” and/or continue to make poor choices, I don’t have any problem with them living in a cardboard box until they die of pneumonia or some other disease, preferably before they breed.

Carrick, Thank you sir!  Your comments and responses are also most lucid and appreciated!  What do you do for a living?

The Heritage Foundation paints a rosy picture of poverty. False but rosy.

Then prove it false.

People in poverty own cars. Does that include the ones on blocks in the yard?

No. The extended form Census questionnaire explicitely states to only list cars that run.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/rector.html

Nice link. What is its point?

How do they do this without going into disasterous debt?

Welfare!

I suspect this means a poor person gets run over by a car and medicaid pays the hospital to set their broken leg has had a $6,000 jump in income.

Hmmm. Nice story.

Poor Americans own appliances. So what this is America not Somalia. Are streets are strewn with perfectly good appliances, that is an indication of how cheap they are. The poor have air conditioning, but not necessarilly the income to run them.

Yeah. Uh huh.

“Poverty” is rough. No doubt about it. Our point still stands strong though: it’s not the dire straights you make it out to be.  And,..low and behold: you can move out of poverty.  There is upward mobility for those who want it.

The Heritage Foundation paints a rosy picture of poverty. False but rosy.

People in poverty own cars. Does that include the ones on blocks in the yard?
A car in much of America, is the only way to get to work and to get the necessities of life. Yes you can work and still be poor.
Still not have enough food to feed your family.

People in poverty live on average in

“three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.”

actually compares is the average floor space per person in certain European cities, such as Paris and Athens, with the average floor space in all poor U.S. households--22 percent of whom live in rural areas and 33 percent of whom live in suburbs. (Even with such an egregious bias, his numbers are underwhelming: The mostly rural and suburban homes of the U.S. poor are only about one-fourth larger than the average home in notoriously crowded Paris.)

http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/rector.html
Who the hell is living in all the slums in America?

low income persons spend $1.94 for every $1.00 in “income” reported by the Census. If this is true,

How do they do this without going into disasterous debt? I suspect this means a poor person gets run over by a car and medicaid pays the hospital to set their broken leg has had a $6,000 jump in income.

Poor Americans own appliances. So what this is America not Somalia. Are streets are strewn with perfectly good appliances, that is an indication of how cheap they are. The poor have air conditioning, but not necessarilly the income to run them.

Rector of Heritage is blowing smoke.

Comparing Paris housing to all US housing.

Putting “if this is true” addendum to income spent.

Seth give up the cadillac driving welfare queen argument. It was bogus when Reagan said it and it is bogus now.

WOOF attempts desperately to dig himself out of hole, forgets first principle of hole digging: when in hole, stop digging:

A car in much of America, is the only way to get to work and to get the necessities of life. Yes you can work and still be poor.

Now you’re conflating poverty with poor, to very different conditions.  I never said we didn’t have poor, which is defined relative to mean income, rather than need.  BY DEFINITION, there will always be “poor” Americans, even if they live in their own private yachts, were the median income to increases enough.

The possession of a car doesn’t mean you’re not poor, but it does indicate that you have the means to take care of yourself, and contradicts a requirement for living in poverty.

Still not have enough food to feed your family.

The question of hunger was explicitly addressed a USDA study. The Census Bureaue “poverty index” places around 36 million Americans in poverty.  Of those, 3.5 percent (roughly 9 million) actually experienced hunger at some point during the year.  In spite of WOOF’s protestations, this percentage has held stable over the last three years, and in fact has decreased by about 0.5% since the last measurement period 1996-98.

I suspect this means a poor person gets run over by a car and medicaid pays the hospital to set their broken leg has had a $6,000 jump in income.

[*] I’m referring to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986. .

Why is it wrong to compare living conditions of our people living in Poverty with the average Parisan?

Lack of food = poverty
The USDA study carrick sites

The prevalence of food insecurity, 11.2 percent of households, was not statistically different from the 11.1 percent observed in 2002. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was unchanged at 3.5 percent.

Why is it wrong to compare living conditions of our people living in Poverty with the average Parisan?

Because it compares only people living in a city to Americans who live in cities suburbs and rural areas. Rector then concludes poor Americans have more space than Europeans. Dishonest comparison.

Poverty is a condition where basic needs are not being met.  If a person in Poverty is living better than an average Parisan, it really isn’t a problem.

Thanks for making my point.

WOOF,

The prevalence of food insecurity, 11.2 percent of households, was not statistically different from the 11.1 percent observed in 2002. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was unchanged at 3.5 percent.

This study is pretty flawed too.  They ask people, have you ever gone to bed hungry during the last year.  DUH… If I was asked, I’d say “Sure, I guess...” I have no lack of food, nor lack of money to buy food.  But everyone in my family has gone to bed “hungry” at some time during the year…

Every city has a mission that provides food for the poor.  Companies provide free food for the poor every single day. 

Compare this with MOST African nations where people may go days without ANY nourishment.  When they do get food, it’s covered in flies, weeks old.  They have no refrigerators, or pest control.

Seth give up the cadillac driving welfare queen argument. It was bogus when Reagan said it and it is bogus now.

I wasn’t making that argument.  It’s not 100% bogus, though, there are some who live on welfare who have more money than I do… but that’s REALLY rare, like abject poverty is.

My argument is that a large percentage of the “poor” are not all that bad off.  I do not prescribe to the “Socialist” view that everyone should be equal.  I think that it would be nice if it worked, but we are not ants… we don’t work, tirelessly for the community and then feed equally off of the gains.  We are all individuals who CHOOSE to make (or break) ourselves as we see fit.  Those who choose to do less than others are rewarded thusly.  Those who choose to do more are rewarded with… higher taxes.

I think we’d all agree that in this country people should have enough to eat.

We in fact to a very credible job with that with food stamps and WIC.  That’s not even giving credit to great organizations like the Salvation Army and food cupboards.

Even so some people go hungry.  Is it because of choices they’ve made or conditions outside of their control.

IF it’s because of the latter we need to do something about that.  If it’s because of the former it’s still a problem (especially if Children are involved) but frankly a harder one to fix.  If they’ve sold the food they’ve purchased with foodstamps to buy alcohol more assistance isn’t going to help.

I once heard that there were four commodity items that would keep a person alive; powdered skim milk, bulgar wheat and two others.  Maybe we should give this out to EVERYONE at ANYTIME.

My Doctor said I need to do that.

WOOF said, Seth give up the cadillac driving welfare queen argument. It was bogus when Reagan said it and it is bogus now.

Really?  Drive through any ghetto and then come back and tell me that.  There’s a term for living in “poverty”, having a shitty house, an empty cupboard, and then having a 30,000+ SUV or Caddie - “GHETTO FABULOUS”.

Those people simply have a poverty of common sense and logic.

The prevalence of food insecurity, 11.2 percent of households, was not statistically different from the 11.1 percent observed in 2002. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was unchanged at 3.5 percent.

What the hell is “food insecurity”?  Do you even know WOOF?
Here,...try this link:

Nearly 90 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2003. About 11 percent of households had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of money and other resources. Most food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid hunger, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens. But 3.5 percent of U.S. households were food insecure to the extent that one or more household members was hungry, at least some time during the year, because the household could not afford enough food.

Wow!  Hungry at least some time during the year.

Hmm… You wonder why we are discounting your sob stories WOOF.

Wow! Hungry at least some time during the year.

Cavalier about other peoples hunger.

Now go damn the Pizza delivery guy cause he’s 20 minutes late.

Cavalier about other peoples hunger.

*sob*...*cry*...*sob*...*sniffle*...*sniffle*

Happy?

I noticed that you largely ignored Carrick’s, The Whistler’s, Seth Yantiss’, and my smashing refutations of your dour and sour proclamations.

WOOF:

Lack of food = poverty The USDA study carrick sites

So we agree that the poverty level is at the most 3.5%?  This is considerably less than the 11% number quoted by the Census Bureau, which really was my point: The Census Bureau metrics are gravely flawed.

And there is a problem with that:  Politicians base policy on the statistics that are provided to them.  Bad statistics means bad policy.

Seth asks:

What do you do for a living?

Play.  My vocation is my advocation:  I am a research scientist (Ph.D Physics).

Hey, Carrick? You know what Ph.D stands for, right?

{read with a slow southern drawl}

My Uncle once told me of a guy his sister dated who had, that there, PhD… He never did get better…

I’m sorry to hear ‘bout that… Is there a treatment?

Play. My vocation is my advocation:

As it should be!  Congratulations!  You’re out of the “rat race” as Robert Kiosaki (sp) puts it. 

I am a research scientist (Ph.D Physics).

Any particular study?  What was your paper on?

Food and Shelter.  There are options to having a Porche.

1.  Take the bus.
2.  Take a job near your home.
3.  Take a home near your job.

After that it comes down to personal preferences.

So we agree that the poverty level is at the most 3.5%?

Not quite, not being able to provide food is absolutely poverty. A lack of shelter qualifies.
People need to at least have food, shelter and usually transportation in order to be self supporting. That is a low baseline in an industialized society.

Whistler:

What causes people to fall through the cracks of the safety net (through no fault of their own)?

This is of course the real question, if we can get people to quit playing partisan with crapped up statistics.  Do mental illness and drug addiction (related of course) count as “no fault of their own”?

The question is is how many people are living without adequate food and shelter through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

We expend tons of money and effort fufilling these peoples needs.

What causes people to fall through the cracks of the safety net (through no fault of their own)?

WOOF:

Not quite, not being able to provide food is absolutely poverty. A lack of shelter qualifies.

Well, yes.  I would agree with this.  The question is how do you determine what the correct number of people who have a prevalence of one or more of these conditions?

If you read what I’ve said, it has never been that poverty doesn’t exist in this country---it exists everywhere except in utopian fantasies.  I think my point still stands that the 36 million number is nothing more than a poorly worked statistic.  And as I’ve said, poor data equals poor policy.

There are plenty of bleeding heart causes which are totally misdirected and are reinforced by bad science and poorly thought out sociological measures.  You can’t fix a problem if you keep exaggerating it and misattributing its causes.  This ultimately falls under the rubrik “good governance versus bad governance”.

The only thing that makes sense is to prepare people for work. Supplement their incomes if necessary. Better the poor are working than looting the Piggly Wiggly.

By any measure of poverty many are children and necessarily innocents.

Intellectually honest, lucid, non-partisan, and I agree whole-heartedly!

The only thing that makes sense is to prepare people for work. Supplement their incomes if necessary. Better the poor are working than looting the Piggly Wiggly.

By any measure of poverty many are children and necessarily innocents.

Well obviously throwing money at a person on drugs or mentally ill won’t help them, won’t help them at all.

Whereas trusting a person down on their luck very well might.