No Starvation In The USA...

[PsychoSy]

Get a load of this article...

I'll come back later and tear it a new ass! :angel:


We live in a country where starvation does not exist

by Robert Rector
Posted Oct 13, 2003

Last month, to much media pooplah, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the U.S. Predictably, liberals all but wailed about bread lines and soup kitchens. Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut called the poverty figures "a national scandal." But the report contained relatively good news, as recessions go. As expected, the Census numbers showed poverty had increased in 2002 due to the economic downturn; however, the poverty rise was quite modest when compared to prior recessions. For example, the report showed that during the first two years of the current downturn the number of poor children increased by 550,000 or one half of 1% of all children. By contrast, in each of the previous three recessions (back to the early 1970s) child poverty increased, on average, by two and a half percentage points over the same period or five times as much. In its impact on poverty, the economic slowdown from which we are now emerging was one of the mildest on record.

But what is more remarkable is the story behind the Census figures: The actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. 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. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions that would have been 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.

Microwaves and Stereos

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

-Forty-six per cent 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 porch or patio.

-Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

-Only 6% 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. (Note: 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% 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. Sixty-two 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 the 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% above recommended levels. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, on average growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 13% of poor families and 2.6% of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases their hunger is short-term. Overall, 84% of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 3% say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, stove, 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 over-crowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and in the last year he had sufficient funds to meet his familys essential needs. While this individuals life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists and politicians. Still, "poverty", even as defined by the broad standards of the Census Bureau, can be reduced further, particularly among children.

There are two main reasons American children are poor: Their parents dont work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year that amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the yearnearly 75% of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. Not having a dad around is another reliable pathway down into poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes. Each year an additional 1.3 million children are born out-of-wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as Food Stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly. Still, in a sense, the poor will always be with us. The liberal grievance industry needs an abundant supply of apparent victims to keep its motors running. Without a permanent victim class, liberals cannot survive. Thus, in liberal imagination and rhetoric, the microwave must always be bare.

[Humus]

Poverty is a very relative. Those who are really poor, don't have food or shelter, are a small fraction of the people in the whole western world. These people need help and should get help. But those who can take care of themselves need no handouts.

I wish this article would make a distinction between liberal and socialist though.

[legion88]

Amusing spin.

Let's consider the fact that poor, middle class, and rich people don't go buying new microwaves, color TVs every year. The "information" would be more useful if they include such things as how old are the microwaves. How big are the color televisions do they have? Did they buy their goods used or new?

What kind of cars are they driving? Were they bought used or new? Do the cars still work--the second car that is?

Yadda, yadda, yadda....

[legion88]

Not mention in the spin article is that the there are 7,229 families below the poverty level. The income of these families are on average about 7,205 dollars below poverty level. Okay.

There are 68,387 families above the poverty level. These families are, on average, 58,000 dollars above the poverty level.

That's a whopping 65,000 dollar difference between the average family below poverty and the average family above it.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/table6.pdf

Methinks that there's a big difference in the quality of the TVs, VCRs, microwaves, and cars not to mention the quantity of such goods between the poor and the average American family.

That 65,000 dollars have to go somewhere if the typical poor family are already well fed. Right?

[intercede007]

Class Warfare, Act II.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally posted by intercede007
Class Warfare, Act II.

It's called human nature. People with less are naturally jealous of those with more. The only way to bypass it is communism, and we all know that doesn't work.

[vampireuk]

People with less are naturally jealous of those with more

Wrong:p I'm happy with what I have and I never get jelous just because somebody has something better. Besides calling poverty jelousy is kind of ummm, well someone else can think of a word for that:p

[Sazar]

this was quite a lovely quote :D

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)

obviously the author while clever enough to draw upon some crowded MAJOR cities conveniently failed to compare them to OUR major crowded cities...

yes... I am sure the new york and san franciso natives are rejoicing about their wonderous space :rofl

a great example of how a journalist can twist 'facts' to suit ones agenda/line of thought...

thanks for the read psy... was a good laugh... :)

I love all these 'lets blame the liberals for all that is bad and evil and whatever not' articles :cool:

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Ninja Prime
It's called human nature. People with less are naturally jealous of those with more. The only way to bypass it is communism, and we all know that doesn't work.

communism in a true form would be better off and have less of a bad name... it is people and human nature/greed/lust for power that undercuts the positives of communism...

[Smashed]

Originally posted by Sazar
communism in a true form would be better off and have less of a bad name... it is people and human nature/greed/lust for power that undercuts the positives of communism...

That must've been Stalin's strategem: get rid of people so communism would work properly.

In fairness, there are worse things than communism. Cubans, on average, are better off with Castro than with Batista's corruption- and nepotism-rife take on capitalism. I don't believe it's sustainable in the long run though. People will always demand more economic freedom once their basic needs are being met.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Smashed
That must've been Stalin's strategem: get rid of people so communism would work properly.

In fairness, there are worse things than communism. Cubans, on average, are better off with Castro than with Batista's corruption- and nepotism-rife take on capitalism. I don't believe it's sustainable in the long run though. People will always demand more economic freedom once their basic needs are being met.

like I said...

it is people and human nature/greed/lust for power that undercuts the positives of communism...

the examples you list vilifies my comment...

and I concur with your last sentence... that is also inherently human nature... we always want more...

I spose agent smith was right... we are like viruses :cool:

[UDawg]

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/info/history/img/tm08_lg.jpg

[LORD-eX-Bu]

McDonalds = :barf:

Now this is real good fast food...

http://www.strages.homestead.com/files/InNout.jpg

I want a double-double already :drooling:

[PsychoSy]

Well, you guys tore it a decent ass and saved me some trouble! :p

I will, however, let you in on a debte I and another Republican had on this very article.

Who goes without food? With the food stamps, soup kitchens, food pantries, you have to look and try really hard in this country to go without food.

Typical Republican rhetoric here, folks. They would have you believe that there's a soup kitchen, food pantry, or a government clerk dishing out food stamps on every single street corner in the United States. However, if they would climb down from their ivory towers long enough, they'd see that their argument isn't true. In fact, what they would see is the exact opposite - instead of a soup kitchen, food pantry, or a government employee leaning againt the 7-Eleven or Mobil gas station dishing out the foodstamps, they'll see examples of their own satanic disease that permates through their ranks, a disease that'll work at anything to STOP such things as soup kitches, food pantries, and loitering foodstamp pushers. George Carlin calls this disease NIMBY - NOT IN MY BACK YARD!

Granted, the "NIMBY" disease doesn't discriminate poltically. There's probably as many Liberals with "NIMBY" as there are Conservatives. It just that Liberals seem to hide it better (nevertheless, if you're perceptive enough, it's like advanced skin cancer - you can see through their clothing from accross the street).

All the things that these people have for the most part, to not go buy food is a decision.

Once again, we're brought to the mutli-faceted, morbidly selective definitions of poor by the radical right. See, according to their self-serving, man-made,"Gawd-Inspired", rules, poor people can't be POOR if they own their own car (nevermind the make or model or how much they paid for it, if at all), can't be poor if they own a CD player (avg. MSRP $45), can't be poor if they own a microwave (avg. MSRP $60), can't be poor if they own a color TV (which Wal-mart regularly has 15 inchers on sale constantly for less that $100), can't be poor if they own their own home (typically, the home they own will either be a mobile home or a one of those homes built by HUD during the 60s/70s).

In their definition, poor people shouldn't be able to AFFORD let alone OWN any of these items...because they're supposed to be POOR...as in "John The Baptist" poor, church mouse poor; 14th-century English pauper style poor. In their eyes, such poor a family - regardless how much they worked and how less they stayed at home - shouldn't be able to get their kids a birthday bicycle or a Christmas morning X-Box. In their "rules", it seems only MIDDLE or RICH class families should be able (or "allowed") to have them.

Why?

"Cuz dey s'posed tah be POOAH!!" :p

This article is nothing more than ammo that Conservative right wingers will readily use to continue waging their evil, racist, Archie Bunker biggoted, class warfare. Such articles tickle their ears with their alledged "truths" so that they can disguise their sadistic hatred of poor people better without necessarily reeking of anti-semitism, bigotry, racism, prejudice, etc., and, as a result, they can feel more confortable oppressing the poor...perhaps even going so far as to actually BS themselves into believing JESUS and GOD are on their side to justify it further.

This artical isn't arguing people's suffering away,

BULL$&*@!

it is only showing that not all that many people are suffering as the liberals like to believe.

Ahh, on the same level that Conservative war cretins of decades past that would rename and rebadge THE SAME BATTLE DISORDER every time we went to war, right? From "shellshock" to "operational exhaustion" to "battle fatigue", to "post traumatic stress disorder", to "Gulf War Syndrome"?!? These definitions were changed and altered into different words and phrases by war-mongering Conservatives to show that these people -- these SOLDIERS -- "weren't suffering all that much". These poor soldiers were BS'ed into thinking that changing the NAME of the condition somehow miraculously changes THE CONDITION ITSELF!

Got news for you, cousin - BZZZZZT! Doesn't happen!!

But they knew this! It was part of their grand design all along - afterall, Hitler taught them well. See...they knew they couldn't change the natures of the condition, but they DID know that if they kept re-badging and relabling it, they would eventually strip all the feeling, all the pain, and all the suffering from the original term, and thus RE-DEFINING the entire thing in the eyes of the public (to discredit the peaceniks in the court of public opinion, thanks to the media). If they hadn't done this, they would've lost public support for their wars and wouldn't have successfully BS'ed the public. It's called propaganda...and if it wasn't for the "Patriotically Correct" spiel of these Conserative, McCarthy-worshipping, Republican war-mongerers, half the names on the Vietnam Veterans memorial in Washington DC wouldn't be there. I can guarantee you that!!

Clinics and ERs have to treat you if you walk in the door so there isn't a single person that has to go without medical treatment.

What about QUALITY of treatment?

Look up in Canada if you want to see what "quality" government run healthcare looks like.

Quit trying to deflect attention from AMERICA's health care problems by playing "The Canada Card". No offense to Canadiens but...You know what, I'm gonna pull a "Bill O'Rielly" here - SCREW CANADA! That's them, and this is us, okay? I'm not interested in Canada's healthcare problems because I'm not Canadian and whatever problems they have with healthcare has nothing to do with America's problems. I'm more worried and concerned about OUR sandbox than theirs at the moment and, FOR ONCE, I would like to see a Conservative Republican actually ADDRESS our problems instead of using "The Canada Card" to dodge them. Is that too much to ask?!?

I think folks that don't pay anything for healthcare has to take what they can get.

And that's why the majority of Americans - regardless of political stripe - are going to work their asses off making sure people like you don't come into or remain in power for very long as they've realize that such a person that thinks like this would probably sell their own mother for a dollar, a stock dividend, or a tax break...anything!

"Hey, it's only Mom, you know!"

Last time I said that, she about kicked my ass over the clothesline in the yard. :p

Poverty at the levels you see in some countries where childeren are litterally starving to death... pictures we see in Ethiopia and other places in Africa... that kind of poverty does not exsist in this country. Poverty is going to always exsist because we always raise the bar enough so that the lowest economic class will be considered to be "poverty".

If that WE means Republicans, then you're right - it's because of people like you think that as long as we're not as bad a Bengladesh, we don't have a problem. I think it's stupid because it implies the idea of not wanting to adress a problem until it gets worse. Other than that, it's amazing that, when the subject of poor is brought up, Republicans readily look outside of the USA to compare their poor to ours. When it's the poor, the Republican will say, "Look at <insert foreign country>...they're worse that us!" but if the subject turns to war, the Republican will say, "Don't listen to <insert same foreign country>...they're nothing but anti-war peaceniks..."

Interesting switcheroo...

they are not "suffering" as you say. I don't see people walking around in pain.

Who the hell are you to decide if their suffering or not? Are you a mindreader today?!? Are you pulling a "Ralph Roberts" scrying into their auras or something (Stephen King fans will understand this reference)?!? You know, for a group of people that always cry, "don't judge a book by it's cover", when it comes to poor people, these type of Republicans readily do exactly that. They'll say, "Yada, yada, yada, he don't look like he's suffering or in pain, yada, yada, yada." And when you corner them with either logic, common sense, or Bible scripture, they bellow, "That's not fair! I'm being a compassionate Conservative!!"

Riiiiiight....

If Conservatives were REALLY compassionate....they wouldn't need to but the adjective BEFORE the noun!! :afro:

Compassionate Conservatism!

God, I hate that phrase. It gives me the willies because every time I hear it, I'm reminded about how Pepsi introduced their "Crystal Pepsi" product a few years back. I drank it a few times and it wasn't all that different than regular Pepsi - it was just Pepsi without the caramel coloring. Just garbage marketing, that's all it was. My "Crystal Pepsi" drinking days came to an end one Saturday Night after a week or two it was on the market. I'm sitting here drinking a Crystal Pepsi and watching Saturday Night Live. Next thing I know, they air a disgusting parody of the product called...

Crystal Gravy!!

And they're showing this clear glop being poured over steaks, mashed potatoes, a guy takes a heaping bite and acts like the flavor is orgasmic. It made me ran to the bathroom and puke my guts out it was so damned sick and disgusting. It's was hilarious, too - I remember laughing my ass off with my head in the camode in between ralphs and yelling at my friends to stop rubbing it in. :D

[UDawg]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
McDonalds = :barf:

Now this is real good fast food...

http://www.strages.homestead.com/files/InNout.jpg

I want a double-double already :drooling:

LMAO BU, nice "baklava" ;) :p

BTW who makes that burger you posted a pic of? MMMM I love the small Ma' and Pa' burger joints. They are by far the best.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Humus
Poverty is a very relative.

Too true! which is why is will always exist.

To be "poor" used to mean that you were starving and had nowhere to live. Now "poor" means that you only have 1 color TV.

Still, I'm glad that I pay taxes so the "poor" can afford absolute necessities to survive, like microwave ovens, automated dishwashers, and DVD players.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by UDawg
LMAO BU, nice "baklava" ;) :p

BTW who makes that burger you posted a pic of? MMMM I love the small Ma' and Pa' burger joints. They are by far the best.

LOL, thanks:D

In-N-Out makes the burgers(best in the world). Only problem is that they are only sold in California:lol:

Another good burger joint is FatBurger:D

[legion88]

Here's another earlier posting from the same author.

America Has the World's Richest Poor People

By Robert Rector

-----------------------------------------

Mr. Rector is senior policy analyst for welfare and poverty issues at the Heritage Foundation.

Today the Census Bureau releases its annual report on income and poverty in the U.S. As it has for many years, the report will show more than 30 million Americans "living in poverty." But a close look at the actual living standards of people defined as "poor" shows that the Census Bureau's report is misleading.

For most of us, the word poverty suggests destitution: the inability to provide a family with adequate food, clothing and shelter. But only a small number of the 30 million plus people classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit this description. Although real material hardship does occur in America, it is rare. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions considered comfortable or even well-off just a few generations ago. Indeed, total spending per person among the lowest-income one-fifth of households actually equals those of the average American household in the early 1970s--after adjusting for inflation.

How poor are the "poor"? Consider the following statistics, all drawn from federal government reports:

In 1995, 41% of all poor households owned their own homes. The average home owned by a poor person has three bedrooms, 11/2 baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

More than 750,000 poor people own homes worth more than $150,000; nearly 200,000 own homes worth more than $300,000.

Only 7.5% of poor households are overcrowded; nearly 60% have two or more rooms per person.

The average poor American has a third more living space than the average Japanese and four times as much living space as the average Russian--that's the average citizen in Japan or Russia, not the average poor person.

Seventy percent of poor households own a car; 27% own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; nearly half own two or more color televisions. Nearly three-quarters have a videocassette recorder; one in five has two VCRs. Sixty-four percent own a microwave oven; half have a stereo system; more than 25% have an automatic dishwasher.

Two-thirds of poor households have air-conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population had air-conditioning.

As a group, the poor are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor Americans are more likely to be overweight than middle-class ones. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight. And 84% of the poor say their families have "enough" food to eat; 13% say they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat. Only 3% say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

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% above recommended levels. Indeed, most poor children today are supernourished, growing up, on average, to be one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in 1944.

The Census Bureau's poverty report is simply inaccurate: It overstates the extent of poverty in the U.S. and understates the real income of most Americans. While a number of errors contribute to the report's inaccuracy, the most critical is that the census dramatically undercounts the true economic resources or annual income received by the American public.

The magnitude of the Census Bureau's economic undercount can be revealed by comparing census figures with the Commerce Department's National Income and Product Accounts, which measure the gross domestic product. In 1996, Commerce Department figures showed that the aggregate "personal income" of Americans (including personal payments of Social Security taxes) was $6.8 trillion. By contrast, aggregate personal income, according to the Census Bureau's official income definition, was only $4.8 trillion.

Thus the Census Bureau missed $2 trillion in annual income, or roughly $20,000 for each U.S. household. The unreported $2 trillion exceeds the entire economies of all but a handful of nations in the world. It is true that much of this missing income belongs to the middle class and the rich, but a large slice is received by low income families as well. Most notably, official Census income figures fail to report more than a half trillion dollars in government assistance to low income and elderly households.

For decades, both conventional wisdom and the Census Bureau have told us that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." This is untrue. The material conditions of lower-income Americans have improved dramatically over time. Most "poor" Americans today are better housed and better fed and own more personal property than average Americans throughout much of this century. In fact, living conditions in our nation as a whole have improved so much that our society can no longer clearly remember what it meant to be poor or even middle class in earlier generations.

But higher material living standards should not be regarded as a victory for the War on Poverty. Living conditions were improving dramatically, and poverty was dropping sharply, long before that war was declared. The principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes but to displace work and earnings with dependence on government. By rewarding dysfunctional and self-destructive behavior, the modern welfare state has contributed to the growth of a new "behavioral poverty" exemplified by illegitimacy, crime, school failure and drug abuse.

By exaggerating the extent of material deprivation and by distracting attention from the more important behavioral problems afflicting low-income communities, the census poverty report does society and the poor a disservice.

http://www.stevenxue.com/ref_37.htm

[legion88]

You may notice that Mr. Heritage Foundation is making some really odd claims (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221es.cfm) . He says that 200,000 "poor" people own homes worth at least $300,000, not to mention another more than three-quarters of a milltion owning houses worth more than $150,000.

He doesn't tell you how many of these poor lived in these houses for 30 years and the value of their home rose to that level--assuming his figures are even accurate.

Keep in mind that the $300,000 home in mid 1990s probably cost about $350,000 or greater today.

Straight from the full text (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm)Some 900,000 households, classified as poor, own homes worth over $150,000. The typical home owned by the "poor" is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It is in good repair, has a garage or carport, and was constructed in 1962. It has a porch or patio, and is located on a half-acre lot. He says his source was "U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey for the United States in 1995, Tables 2.3 and 2.7."

(Keep in mind that his summary and full report #s don't even add up. 750 + 200 does not equal 900. It equals 950.)

You can view the actual census report here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/h151-95-1.pdf

Table 2.7 gives surveys about how many houses have porches, whatever. Table 2.3 tells you the quality of the house like whether there is sewage disposal breakdowns. Whatever. That's the wrong table. It's table 2.2. that tells you who is poor. Anyway,

Of the 63,500+ households, about 6,000 households report to be at or below poverty level. There's another 8,600+ that lives in rental units (aka apartments). Need to read table 3.1 for that. Add them all together and divide you get about 41% of all poor households owning their own homes. Fine.

The median cost of a home for all households was 92,000. The median income was a tad under $40,000. You actually do not find any data saying 200,000 "poor" people own homes costing at least $300,000. The only data that is reported: there are 3,459 homes that cost at least $300,000 but does not tell you who owns them. So where did he come up with this number? Well, here's one possibility. You be the judge.

There are a total of about 97,000 households. 6,000 are houses owned by poor people. That's 6000/97000 = ~6.1%. (You chop off digits in the calculations. Instead of 6.176%, you use 6.1%. Don't round. Chop digits. So the numbers only have two significant digits.)

Multiple 6.1% by all houses that cost over 150,000. There's 15,730 houses that cost over $150,000. Thus by the conservative's math, that's ~950 houses that costs $150,000 owned by poor people.

Of the 15,730 houses that cost more than $150,000, 3459 of them cost over $300,000. So of the 15,730 houses, 21% cost over $300,000. (It is actually 21.9898% but you chop off digits, not round.)

Multiple 21% by 950 and you get nearly 200.


(Note: multiple my numbers by 1000 as I'm taking them straight from the tables and they report by the 1,000).

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Legion88, slow down and take a deep breath.

CALM DOWN!!!

:lol:

[UDawg]

The left hates republicans worse than SUVs LMAO!!! Legion88 cracks me up. :D

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Legion88 your sig offends me, I suggest you remove it:lol:

[UDawg]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
Legion88 your sig offends me, I suggest you remove it:lol:


I'M OFFENDED DARN IT! SOMEONE LISTEN TO ME! I TELL YOU I'M OFFENDED!

:rofl

[legion88]

More interesting facts about housing (multiply all my numbers by 1000).

In 2001, there were 72,265 homes where people lived in them.

45 of them have no bedrooms. 3 of the 45 cost $300,000 or more.
288 of them have no bathrooms. 7 of the 288 cost $300,000 or more.
146 of the homes aren't heated. 51 of the 146 cost $300,000 or more.

I can assume that there are some $300,000 homes that don't have a bedroom, a bathroom, and not heated.

So what kind of homes are these? Expensive sheds?

Also another interesting tidbit about the spin article from the Heritage Foundation gurus. They neglect to tell the readers that if you have assets of trillions but reported no income for that year, you are considered 'poor' as the definition of 'poor' is defined by your income for that year, not how much you have or your average income for the past 5 years or anything like that.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by legion88
More interesting facts about housing (multiply all my numbers by 1000).

In 2001, there were 72,265 homes where people lived in them.

45 of them have no bedrooms. 3 of the 45 cost $300,000 or more.
288 of them have no bathrooms. 7 of the 288 cost $300,000 or more.
146 of the homes aren't heated. 51 of the 146 cost $300,000 or more.

I can assume that there are some $300,000 homes that don't have a bedroom, a bathroom, and not heated.

So what kind of homes are these? Expensive sheds?

Also another interesting tidbit about the spin article from the Heritage Foundation gurus. They neglect to tell the readers that if you have assets of trillions but reported no income for that year, you are considered 'poor' as the definition of 'poor' is defined by your income for that year, not how much you have or your average income for the past 5 years or anything like that.

maybe these 'houses' are in an area where property prices are ridiculously high...

i have seen this in areas of st pete/tampa... lovely/expensive apartments/houses with an island of towntrodden houses that look like they are 1800's relics... their VALUE will be high... but will they be usable/livable? unlikely.. at least to you and me...