Number of Americans in poverty hits record high

[Audley Strange]

Yeah, the dead, totally corrupt and rotten to the core, they are.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, the dead, totally corrupt and rotten to the core, they are.

I think they're gaming the system.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah, the dead, totally corrupt and rotten to the core, they are.

I think they're gaming the system.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Tyrannical]

Just so you know, you can still be receiving a small fortune in free government benefits (food, medical, housing) and still be below the poverty line because it is based on income, not received benefits.

[Seth]

Just so you know, you can still be receiving a small fortune in free government benefits (food, medical, housing) and still be below the poverty line because it is based on income, not received benefits.

Yah, in which case I've been living in poverty for about a decade, since I have no "income."

[Tyrannical]

Just so you know, you can still be receiving a small fortune in free government benefits (food, medical, housing) and still be below the poverty line because it is based on income, not received benefits.

Yah, in which case I've been living in poverty for about a decade, since I have no "income."

It's quite possible you are part of the poverty statistic.

[Seth]

Just so you know, you can still be receiving a small fortune in free government benefits (food, medical, housing) and still be below the poverty line because it is based on income, not received benefits.

Yah, in which case I've been living in poverty for about a decade, since I have no "income."

It's quite possible you are part of the poverty statistic.

I've toyed with the idea of becoming a dependent-class leech, but the problem is all the paperwork and personal information you have to give the government. It's allows them way too much knowledge and control over your live to be worth it.

I may change my mind if Obamacare survives Supreme Court review, which I doubt.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Spiritual poverty. Just sayin'.

[Audley Strange]

Spiritual poverty. Just sayin'.

Niiiice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Spiritual poverty. Just sayin'.

Niiiice.

Unfortunately, only those who are willing can pull themselves out of poverty of that kind. I don't have much hope.

[Audley Strange]

Spiritual poverty. Just sayin'.

Niiiice.

Unfortunately, only those who are willing can pull themselves out of poverty of that kind. I don't have much hope.

I think it was the great sage Funkadelic who said "Freedom is free of the need to be free".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Spiritual poverty. Just sayin'.

Niiiice.

Unfortunately, only those who are willing can pull themselves out of poverty of that kind. I don't have much hope.

I think it was the great sage Funkadelic who said "Freedom is free of the need to be free".

True freedom means you can pick the time you will die.

[Feck]

Just so you know, you can still be receiving a small fortune in free government benefits (food, medical, housing) and still be below the poverty line because it is based on income, not received benefits.

Studies measuring the difference between income before and after taxes and government transfers, however, have found that without these programs poverty would be roughly 30% to 40% higher than the official poverty line indicates, despite many of their benefits not being counted as income.

Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielson, F. & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 22-51.
'The results strongly suggest that more generous entitlements to key social insurance programs are associated not only with lower relative poverty but also with lower absolute poverty. This supports the contention that promoting relative economic equality can improve the absolute material well-being of the poor.'

[Seth]

Just so you know, you can still be receiving a small fortune in free government benefits (food, medical, housing) and still be below the poverty line because it is based on income, not received benefits.

Studies measuring the difference between income before and after taxes and government transfers, however, have found that without these programs poverty would be roughly 30% to 40% higher than the official poverty line indicates, despite many of their benefits not being counted as income.

Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielson, F. & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 22-51.
'The results strongly suggest that more generous entitlements to key social insurance programs are associated not only with lower relative poverty but also with lower absolute poverty. This supports the contention that promoting relative economic equality can improve the absolute material well-being of the poor.'

Well now, there's a dim glance of the blindingly obvious from, no doubt, a bunch of idiot socialists masquerading as scientists. Of course if you take what someone with more than someone else has and redistribute it to others who have less (promoting relative economic equality) then you can improve the absolutely material well-being of the less wealthy...at the expense of the rights of those who have labored to achieve economic success.

Said succinctly, yes, when you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the poor have more money and stuff.

What this quote fails to consider is whether it is moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor, and whether any particular poor person deserves to be the beneficiary of theft-based socialist redistribution schemes.

And then there's the not inconsiderable question of what happens when the rich get tired of being productive and having their wealth stolen from them by the dependent class and decide to stop being productive and enter the dependent class. When that happens, nobody's producing wealth, so everybody starves.