Steve Ballmer Drops Massive Data Dump on How Tax Dollars Are Spent

[Ducman69]

This part is correct. And when I linked to one you suddenly switched goal posts to "where are the pics of thousands of starving Somali's!?!?" which is facetious.

That's not what facetious means, and yes I asked for pictures of starving people, and said they don't have that, they have pictures of emaciated individuals that most likely have AIDS or another disease that causes them to look like skin and bones. The reason is because it wouldn't make sense to the viewer if you have a crowd of people and most are fat, and only one looks "starving". Right? But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so show me pictures of starving people. Surely if thousands are starving, there should be a holocaust type picture of a crowd.

Just prove me wrong real quick, and if you're finding that's an impossible task to find a simple picture, that should tell you something.

 

[Ducman69]

Box of mac and cheese will feed your family calories for a buck. You find me what ghetto bodega sells all this subsidized organic produce you speak of. Aren't many Whole Foods where broke ass people are.

Why do you have to lie though? Doesn't that make you feel ashamed and embarrassed and that your argument is weaker when you are forced to fabricate a straw man to defend your position? Which part of this implied "whole foods"?

Because poor people are usually poor because they make poor life choices, including spending a fortune at KFC for unhealthy food and ordering too much food, rather than saving money and eating less and cheaper self-prepared food (potatoes, canned veggies, celery, milk, bananas, and eggs are exceedingly cheap).

All those foods are subsidized by the government and tax free, and way cheaper than prepared processed food at fast food restaurants, that are primarily frequented by the poor.

Lets say they are just making mac and cheese because of a mental deficiency that prevents them from learning how a can opener works and how to mix ingredients and heat them... why not make spaghetti which is cheaper and healthier? Mac and Cheese is super high in sodium and is 1/3rd of its calories from fat, and even "fancy" spaghetti sauces like Prego Heartsmart is available in the very large plastic tubs for cheap. Food stamps more than covers such "extravagances".

 

[tetris42]

"Fat" and "starving" are not mutually exclusive. Cheap food is chock full of carbs and fat and limited protein and nutrients. There are plenty of poor people who are overweight but nutritionally starved.

I mean, freaking ricketts is making a comeback

I can see this spiraling out of control, so I just wanted to clarify the obvious:

"Fat" and "starving" ARE mutually exclusive... for the INDIVIDUAL. They are NOT exclusive for the populace. Ducman69 was saying something like 30% of the poor are overweight earlier. I haven't confirmed that, but let's say that's true, it sounds plausible. Well another 20% of the poor CAN ALSO be underfed, leaving 50% getting about the calories they need. Math!

"Fat" and "malnourished" are NOT mutually exclusive for the individual.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

And how do you get these giant tubs of spaghetti sauce from the grocery store several miles away when you don't have a car?

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

I can see this spiraling out of control, so I just wanted to clarify the obvious:

"Fat" and "starving" ARE mutually exclusive... for the INDIVIDUAL. They are NOT exclusive for the populace. Ducman69 was saying something like 30% of the poor are overweight earlier. I haven't confirmed that, but let's say that's true, it sounds plausible. Well another 20% of the poor CAN ALSO be underfed, leaving 55% getting about the calories they need. Math!

"Fat" and "malnourished" are NOT mutually exclusive for the individual.

Fair point.

 

[DejaWiz]

Those "absurdly high taxes" result in costs that work out to about half of what the US spends on healthcare so if that counts as predatory in your book then I guess the US's system would be what? Fiendishly corrupt? Mindblowingly evil??

I hear they tend to have less paper work too. Just show proof of citizenship and you're fine as far as payment at point of service goes.

What are the populations in those countries that have "half the spending"? And how many people die while on those waiting lists that don't incur any costs that resulted in reducing the overall spending?

 

[Lizard Testes]

I think people should have the right to pass their patrimony on to their descendants (or whomever) without being taxed a second time. I mean, they were taxed on all of it already, right? People passing their productivity on to the next generation is how societies progress, taxing them again on top of all the previous taxation seems like a step backwards to me.

No, they weren't taxed on all of it already. You've apparently never heard of unrealized capital gains?

In fact, for the largest estates, the majority of their value is unrealized capital gains and has therefore never been taxed.

I don't see the problem with people passing the fruits of their productivity on to their descendants. Encourages productivity.

I don't think anyone has proposed taxing them at 100%, have they? Additionally the first 10.9 million is tax free.

 

[Ducman69]

Ducman69 was saying something like 30% of the poor are overweight earlier. I haven't confirmed that, but let's say that's true, it sounds plausible. Well another 20% of the poor CAN ALSO be underfed, leaving 50% getting about the calories they need. Math!

Also retarded, because if many poor are fat asses, then poverty can't be the explanation for some being underfed, right? You can't say the poor don't have enough money to get sufficient calories, while so many are whales riding down Walmart lanes on scooters proving that narrative false. Causality!!! Finish him!!!

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Also retarded, because if many poor are fat asses, then poverty can't be the explanation for some being underfed, right? You can't say the poor don't have enough money to get sufficient calories, while so many are whales riding down Walmart lanes on scooters proving that narrative false.

The existance of fat people in WalMart proves what exactly? Do you do income verification checks on them?

 

[Ducman69]

The existance of fat people in WalMart proves what exactly? Do you do income verification checks on them?

You just conceded via "like" that 30% of poor people are obese. If poor people can buy enough food to become obese, then logically, you can't say that other poor people can't afford food with the same income as the fatasses.... riiiiiight? Not conceptually difficult here, is it?

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

I'll give you credit, your ability to break a complex problem down, disregard any reality but the one you know, and regurgitate rhetoric is quite impressive.

So let's ignore the fact that poor people often lack access to quality food (ie. Food deserts), often lack transportation to better food, often lack the education to make better food decisions, often live in areas devoid of exercise options, are as likely as the rest of the population to have generic disposition to obesity, and a multitude of other factors and assume all poor people are fat and lazy by choice, then?

 

[Ducman69]

So let's ignore the fact that poor people often lack access to quality food (ie. Food deserts), often lack transportation to better food, often lack the education to make better food decisions, often live in areas devoid of exercise options, are as likely as the rest of the population to have generic disposition to obesity, and a multitude of other factors and assume all poor people are fat and lazy by choice, then?

Holy Christ... Food deserts is nonsense, and you can stock up on food if you have to. Fucking Eskimos can do it traveling huge distances to get supplies over barren ice deserts, so Shaniqua and Kletus can figure it out too, and they DO figure it out, which is why they are fat. They eat too much. Devoid of exercise options? Your body weight is sufficient for 99% of exercises. Pushups, situps, squats, burpees, wall sit, walk up stairs, jog.

And please stop with "muh genetics". If poor people can't afford food, I promise you they would not get fat from eating insufficient calories. That would defy basic physics and thermodynamics of calories burned vs calories consumed.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Holy Christ... Food deserts is nonsense, and you can stock up on food if you have to. Fucking Eskimos can do it traveling huge distances to get supplies over barren ice deserts, so Shaniqua and Kletus can figure it out too, and they DO figure it out, which is why they are fat. They eat too much. Devoid of exercise options? Your body weight is sufficient for 99% of exercises. Pushups, situps, squats, burpees, wall sit, walk up stairs, jog.

And please stop with "muh genetics". If poor people can't afford food, I promise you they would not get fat from eating insufficient calories. That would defy basic physics and thermodynamics of calories burned vs calories consumed.

I usually scoff at the term entitled but wow. You know....a janitor at my building had his bike stolen. The man biked miles of city to work. So he walked. 2 hours back and forth to be here at 6am. Still overweight. Well, was, he was hit by a car on his way to work a couple months ago and killed. Welcome to the life of the poor people that actually are trying to live normal.

 

[Morlock]

I hear crickets chirping on the Somalia thing...take note, folks, leftists hate it when you point out how Africans don't take starvation (or poverty, or war, or...) seriously enough to stop breeding like rabbits.

The rich frequently evade taxes though. As has been pointed out earlier in thread they litterally have trillions hidden away. Also the whole double taxation thing is mostly a strawman.

Taxing inheritance because of tax cheats punishes those innocent of tax evasion and those guilty alike. Do you ever think things through before spewing leftist cant?

It's not a straw man, it's math. Tax me when I earned the money, tax me when I pass it on to my (whomever), that's double taxation.

The tax money would get spent on society.

And a lot of that money spent, particularly above a certain threshold, is wasted.

LOL according to you and others in thread giving people money they didn't work for was bad since it supposedly encouraged sloth

1. That's a lie, you made that up (or someone else said it) and attributed it to me. I mean, it obviously does encourage sloth (how dumb do you have to be to think it doesn't?), but I didn't say it.
2. It doesn't encourage productivity in the receiver, necessarily, but in the giver, genius. As in, having something to pass on is motivating, while knowing more of it will be taken and given to strangers is demotivating.
3. Randomly spewing public monies isn't at all the same as letting someone pass money that they made (and were already taxed on once) on to someone of their choice. Productivity tends to run in families, too, btw, so it makes a lot more sense than going all socialist with it.

Why do you think it'd require all the resources of the planet? SNAP feeds a person for a month for about $125 FWIW. Obviously nowhere near all the resources of the planet are required.

So, no idea what diminishing returns means then.

Virtually none of my edits have been hostile and I've been labeling all my edits too so again reality is the exact opposite of what you say it is.

Bullshit. You left the end off my quote to change its meaning.

"Fat" and "starving" are not mutually exclusive. Cheap food is chock full of carbs and fat and limited protein and nutrients. There are plenty of poor people who are overweight but nutritionally starved.

I mean, freaking ricketts is making a comeback

Yeah but none of them are dying from it. Educate them about good diet and move on, I says. Leftists just can't grok that there's only so much you can do to help people. Not that they really give a shit - they're fine with driving down wages of American workers via open borders. They insist on it, in fact. Blacks are hardest-hit by low-skill immigration from south of the border, leftists make not a peep.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

Yeah but none of them are dying from it. Educate them about good diet and move on, I says. Leftists just can't grok that there's only so much you can do to help people. Not that they really give a shit - they're fine with driving down wages of American workers via open borders. They insist on it, in fact. Blacks are hardest-hit by low-skill immigration from south of the border, leftists make not a peep.

You're not wrong... the "left" has done little to help the actual poor. And handouts don't help, just teaches dependency. But there are things that can be done other than just letting people rot in poverty.

 

[Morlock]

And how do you get these giant tubs of spaghetti sauce from the grocery store several miles away when you don't have a car?

I dunno, maybe if I had that problem I'd figure it out?

So let's ignore the fact that poor people often lack access to quality food (ie. Food deserts), often lack transportation to better food, often lack the education to make better food decisions, often live in areas devoid of exercise options, are as likely as the rest of the population to have generic disposition to obesity, and a multitude of other factors and assume all poor people are fat and lazy by choice, then?

Can you define "often" for each case? How often do they live in food deserts? Because I've lived in the ghetto. More than one. And there was always a grocery store nearby. And bus stops. As for education, everybody's got a cell phone. That has google. That has links to how to eat healthy for less than eating fast food.

True black-run democrat-run shitholes like Detroit may have food deserts, but these places are like demilitarized zones because of chronic mismanagement.

"Exercise options"? WTF? No stairs in the ghetto. No sidewalks? No basketball courts?

FFS, do the poor have any agency at all in your mind?

 

[Morlock]

I usually scoff at the term entitled but wow. You know....a janitor at my building had his bike stolen. The man biked miles of city to work. So he walked. 2 hours back and forth to be here at 6am. Still overweight. Well, was, he was hit by a car on his way to work a couple months ago and killed. Welcome to the life of the poor people that actually are trying to live normal.

Yeah maybe Mitt Romney stole his bike.

You're not wrong... the "left" has done little to help the actual poor. And handouts don't help, just teaches dependency. But there are things that can be done other than just letting people rot in poverty.

Agreed, but it's a plain fact that you can't help some people. Some people just don't have the cognitive tools to live outside poverty. Another old saying is instructive; "a fool and his money are soon parted." Ever seen the stories about how many NBA players are broke within 10 years of retiring from the sport? Or how many people who win the lottery wind up broke? Some people just don't have the cognitive ability, or the inclination, to sustain themselves above a certain economic threshold.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

I dunno, maybe if I had that problem I'd figure it out?



Can you define "often" for each case? How often do they live in food deserts? Because I've lived in the ghetto. More than one. And there was always a grocery store nearby. And bus stops. As for education, everybody's got a cell phone. That has google. That has links to how to eat healthy for less than eating fast food.

True black-run democrat-run shitholes like Detroit may have food deserts, but these places are like demilitarized zones because of chronic mismanagement.

"Exercise options"? WTF? No stairs in the ghetto. No sidewalks? No basketball courts?

FFS, do the poor have any agency at all in your mind?

I've lived poor...i work two blocks from projects. I scrapped my way out but the deck is stacked heavy and high.

 

[tetris42]

You just conceded via "like" that 30% of poor people are obese. If poor people can buy enough food to become obese, then logically, you can't say that other poor people can't afford food with the same income as the fatasses.... riiiiiight? Not conceptually difficult here, is it?

Apparently the concept for you is difficult! Here's something to consider: some people are poorer than others. Look at it this way:

Poor person A: Overweight, makes 20k a year and spends half his food budget on cheetos.

Poor person B: Only works one job full time at minimum wage and brings in 15k a year AND can only find a place to live that's $100 higher rent than the other poor people, OR his job requires him to have a car, which eats into other expenses, OR he has a medical problem, so he has to choose between food or medication half the time. HE doesn't get enough to eat because there's simply not enough to go around.

Your logic only makes sense if everyone had equal abilities, equal situations, and was equally poor.

 

[Morlock]

I mean, full stop: if leftists are so het up about poverty in America, why do they insist, like it's an article of faith, on importing more of it?

 

[Morlock]

And why do they refuse to acknowledge the problem of poor people's reproductive rates, much less do anything about it? Shout down anyone who does acknowledge it?

 

[tetris42]

And why do they refuse to acknowledge the problem of poor people's reproductive rates, much less do anything about it? Shout down anyone who does acknowledge it?

Well you seem to have a pretty clear idea of who you're talking to, though I don't know who it is. Afterall, it's the right that tends to block birth control efforts.

 

[Ducman69]

I usually scoff at the term entitled but wow. You know....a janitor at my building had his bike stolen. The man biked miles of city to work. So he walked. 2 hours back and forth to be here at 6am. Still overweight. Well, was, he was hit by a car on his way to work a couple months ago and killed. Welcome to the life of the poor people that actually are trying to live normal.

Lets break this down, as this is a good one. What specific statement have I made that leads you to believe I'm "entitled"... and entitled to what?

I believe in personal accountability and responsibility for one's actions (including negative repercussions) and that people should pay for what they use and be compensated fairly for the work that they do. That's my whole spiel.

Besides the fact that I think you're a liar and made up that story, thermodynamics is very simple. A small fat-free milk, sausage/egg/cheese mcgriddle, and hashbrowns is 830 calories, which would take approximately 2.7 hours of walking at about 3mph to burn off. So, yes, you can walk and still easily consume more calories than you are burning.

I'm not sure how this hypothetical person getting hit by a car is relevant, but if he was in a poorer neighborhood, it is true that poor people get in far more accidents per capita than average... again, because poor people are often poor because they make poor life choices, including behind the wheel, with far higher rates of speeding, reckless, and drunk driving. Its the worst in poorer countries, which is why you hear of so many vehicle related fatalities in countries like India. Not relevant, but since you brought it up, just figured that's another thing you can't blame rich people on.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

And why do they refuse to acknowledge the problem of poor people's reproductive rates, much less do anything about it? Shout down anyone who does acknowledge it?

Duh. But that goes back to education and availability of healthcare options.

 

[Pusher of Buttons]

And the story is quite real and I'd link to the several news articles about it if it didn't include info about my place of work

 

[tetris42]

I mean, full stop: if leftists are so het up about poverty in America, why do they insist, like it's an article of faith, on importing more of it?

Well one thing to consider is there's plenty of shit on both sides. I agree that it makes sense to fix domestic problems before trying to take on the rest of the world's. Many on the left want to import and any all immigrants, many on the right want to bomb countries that aren't really involved with us and sell weapons wholesale to countries connected to terrorist organizations, go figure.

 

[Ducman69]

Apparently the concept for you is difficult! Here's something to consider: some people are poorer than others.

Yup, and statistics show that the rate of obesity increases the poorer someone is, with the absolute lowest income brackets having the highest rates of obesity.

That means that as a trend, poor people do not have problems with lack of food, and the government provides MORE than enough welfare to cover a poor person's calorie requirements, unless they are trading food stamps for crack and the like.

 

[tetris42]

Yup, and statistics show that the rate of obesity increases the poorer someone is, with the absolute lowest income brackets having the highest rates of obesity.

That means that as a trend, poor people do not have problems with lack of food

I tried to explain it. If you can't get it, you can't get it. I'll just leave this here:

 

[DejaWiz]

 

[Lizard Testes]

Do you ever think things through before spewing leftist cant?

Says the guy that doesn't know how the estate tax works but still wants to argue about it.

 

[Ducman69]

I tried to explain it.

I know, your mental gymnastics to get around common sense and logic was quite impressive, but you were a little over ambitious and face planted at the end.

 

[tybert7]

Also retarded, because if many poor are fat asses, then poverty can't be the explanation for some being underfed, right? You can't say the poor don't have enough money to get sufficient calories, while so many are whales riding down Walmart lanes on scooters proving that narrative false. Causality!!! Finish him!!!

Actually, this is an excellent case of an environmental change. The increase in sugar and a war against fat. Sugar causes more obesity than anything else. And we have it in everything, even bread at the market is often laced with sugar.

Couple this with a rise in video games and more sedentary time spent on consoles and computers and increased sugar in the diet. Same people, different environment = fatter people.

 

[tetris42]

I know, your mental gymnastics to get around common sense and logic was quite impressive, but you were a little over ambitious and face planted at the end.

Says the person who doesn't understand how a group of tens of millions of people can't have SOME going hungry and OTHERS having more than enough to eat. It's really that fucking simple, but it obviously doesn't mesh well with the black and white thinking of everybody is the same thing. But fine, faceplant.

EDIT:
I know this is a mistake, but I guess I'm a sucker for punishment. I'll try to explain one last time:

Say you have 300 people, rich, middle class, and poor. 100 each.

In the rich class, 0 go hungry, 10 are overweight
In the middle class, 2 go hungry, 20 are overweight.
In the poor class, 20 go hungry, 30 are overweight.

Under that scenario, the assertion that the less money you have, the odds are higher of being fatter is true. The assertion that the less money you have, the odds are higher of going hungry is ALSO true. Some of the poor will have enough money to stuff themselves, others won't. This is not mental gymnastics. This is middle school level math. I can't make it any more simple than that. If you find this upsetting, by all means, continue the insults.

 

[Ducman69]

Says the person who doesn't understand how a group of tens of millions of people can't have SOME going hungry and OTHERS having more than enough to eat.

We already went over this.

Causality.

You claim that poor people aren't being given enough money by the government to buy sufficient calories to feed themselves. However, the poor, as a whole, suffer from severe obesity at a rate far above the national average, and the obesity rate increases the lower the income bracket.

This demonstrates that even the very poorest Americans are not only given sufficient resources to feed themselves, but in fact to OVERFEED themselves severely.

Thus, logically, the only way someone would be going hungry is if they chose to, such as selling their food stamps to pay for meth for example.

Causality.

 

[tetris42]

You claim that poor people aren't being given enough money by the government to buy sufficient calories to feed themselves.

Quote me on that. I never said that. I said IF paying more in taxes could fix hunger, I'd be glad to pay it. I also said in the same post that our resources are badly misallocated. Hell, I'd be fine with giving the poor NO money, but instead using the money to only give food, provide shelter, or other essential resources.

This demonstrates that even the very poorest Americans are not only given sufficient resources to feed themselves, but in fact to OVERFEED themselves severely.

Once again, you don't get it. This demonstrates SOME of the very poorest Americans are given sufficient resources. Every argument you're making makes zero distinction between SOME poor vs. ALL.

 

[Ducman69]

Quote me on that. I never said that. I said IF paying more in taxes could fix hunger, I'd be glad to pay it. I also said in the same post that our resources are badly misallocated. Hell, I'd be fine with giving the poor NO money, but instead using the money to only give food or provide shelter.

You implied that more taxes redistributed to the poor could solve hunger, to which I replied that our poor have more than enough money for food and in fact are overall quite fat and not hungry. You then continued to insist that poor people are "food insecure" and live in "food deserts" and simply don't have access to sufficient calories, which is nonsense.

Our poor are given more than enough to overeat if they choose to, evidenced by the fact that so many of even the poorest are fatasses. Its just that simple.

 

[tetris42]

You implied that more taxes redistributed to the poor could solve hunger

Only if they weren't misused. Sending money blindly wouldn't. My point was I'm in favor of taxes that are used to help people. I'm NOT in favor of taxes that are misused.

You then continued to insist that poor people are "food insecure" and live in "food deserts" and simply don't have access to sufficient calories, which is nonsense.

Again, quote me. I never said that. I DID say that 1 in 5 children go hungry according to the US Department of Agriculture. Where did I talk about food deserts?

Thus, logically, the only way someone would be going hungry is if they chose to, such as selling their food stamps to pay for meth for example.

Yes, that would be true, if food stamps could amply provide enough food for anyone. The average food stamp recipient receives $126 a month:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits

Oh yeah, that sure sounds like wanting for nothing as far as food as concerned. How could ANYONE go hungry with so much money for food every month? The only answer is they must be selling the stamps for meth, right? Yes, it's possible to get by on that, but you absolutely cut corners one way or another. I don't know you, but if I had to guess, I'd say you spend more than $126 on food every month, yet are here lecturing how that's more than enough for anyone.

Our poor are given more than enough to overeat if they choose to, evidenced by the fact that so many of even the poorest are fatasses. Its just that simple.

Again, every single post you're making indicates you don't understand the difference between some v. all. Someone making 20k has far more options to eat than someone making 12k, but you keep counting that as the same thing.

 

[Ducman69]

Again, quote me. I never said that. I DID say that 1 in 5 children go hungry according to the US Department of Agriculture. Where did I talk about food deserts?

To which I retorted that the poor are given plenty of money for food, and we don't have people starving in the US (exception of course unless they choose to). You're right on the food deserts, that was two other posters before and after your post.

Yes, that would be true, if food stamps could amply provide enough food for anyone. The average food stamp recipient receives $126 a month

Wrong, the average welfare recipient receives numerous funds under various programs via federal, state, county, and municipality benefit programs (as well as private charities). http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356317/welfare-better-deal-work-michael-tanner

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.

You can easily feed yourself with $30K a year, and in fact $30K in welfare income is far greater than $30K for a paying job, because welfare payments are not taxed. Combine that with standing on the side of the road for a few hours a day or some other undeclared untaxed income, and it is far more lucrative than working a typical 9-5 $12 an hour job that requires responsibility and punctuality.

Again, all are given the OPPORTUNITY to not only feed themselves, but gorge themselves to the point of morbid obesity, and we know this even without looking at the numbers that also support this because so many poor people are fatasses.

So that means, no, we don't have a hunger problem in the United States, and, no, people that choose to go hungry (typically due to substance abuse) don't count.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Only if you include their house in their net worth, which is a sick joke. People who actually have liquid assets in the million dollar range or who earn a significant chunk of $1 million a year do not drive Taurses and Camry's.


That is a crap tier "advice" book that has very little actual practical real world advice and is mostly just anecdotes about people who have a lot of money.


Hahahahahaha have you seen the used car market lately? I know you haven't if you're saying stuff like this. Slightly used cars do not sell for >50% off unless they're salvage titles that aren't even really repaired properly. Used car prices have recently reached a new all time high in 2016 BTW.


Hahahahaha what you think people WANT to get into a 72mo+ car loan?! Or that they don't realize being able to pay outright would be cheaper!?!?!

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. THEY TAKE THE CRAPPY LOAN BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

They have no choice because:
a) their wages aren't high enough. Wages have been stagnating or declining in real terms for decades while benefits have been continuously slashed.
b) cars are too friggin' expensive, the avg. price of a new car in 2016 is $34K.
(edit) c) public transportation in the US is at best a joke and frequently non-existent, you NEED a car

Virtually no avg. wage earner in the US can afford to save that much money in any reasonable amount of time and still afford to live.

Well then I guess statistical surveys are wrong and I didn't buy two $45k Tauruses for $22k and less than 13k on the clock. Or that I get a new used car every 10+ years so I have time to save up for it.

And cars are not far off from inflation adjusted prices of cars from the 70s 80s and 90s. And look how much more you get now.

I live very modestly. I could have a house that is 6000 SF. But I choose not to. I don't need it. I'm living like no one else so I can live like no one else later.

I would tell you more but you would just call me a liar and would be pissed off.

I can show anyone making 50k a year how to be a.millionaire by retirement easy. (Provided you are disciplined and start early enough). I'm not a financial consultant but the numbers do work out.

And making 50k is easy. Even truckers make 50k. Conductors on trains make 80k and they have great retirement benefits and health benefits. No college degree required. Plumbers electricians brick Mason's master carps make.50k easy. Just takes some.trade school.

Quit making excuses.

Now I don't take ducmans.approach that all people make dumb life choices and the genetic lottery b.s.

Poverty breeds poverty because ignorance is taught. It's not genetic. If you know no other lifestyle other than being a poor mom on welfare with your baby daddy locked up in jail, then who's going to teach you?

Education as to a better way of life is key.

The difference between a capitalist and a socialist is a socialist will look at a rich man's house and say "no one should live like this" a capitalist will say "everyone should live like this."

 

[tetris42]

To which I retorted that the poor are given plenty of money for food, and we don't have people starving in the US (exception of course unless they choose to). You're right on the food deserts, that was two other posters before and after your post.

Wrong, the average welfare recipient receives numerous funds under various programs via federal, state, county, and municipality benefit programs (as well as private charities). http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356317/welfare-better-deal-work-michael-tanner

You can easily feed yourself with $30K a year, and in fact $30K in welfare income is far greater than $30K for a paying job, because welfare payments are not taxed. Combine that with standing on the side of the road for a few hours a day or some other undeclared untaxed income, and it is far more lucrative than working a typical 9-5 $12 an hour job that requires responsibility and punctuality.

Again, all are given the OPPORTUNITY to not only feed themselves, but gorge themselves to the point of morbid obesity, and we know this even without looking at the numbers that also support this because so many poor people are fatasses.

So that means, no, we don't have a hunger problem in the United States, and, no, people that choose to go hungry (typically due to substance abuse) don't count.

Well we're basically disagreeing on facts at this point. Forgive me if I trust statistics from the USDA over the Cato Institute, which is as biased as it gets. Regardless, if their figures are accurate, they're looking at combined benefits total and it doesn't state the spread. I imagine most of it would go towards medical expenses, which are the #1 cause of bankruptcies for Americans to begin with.

Regardless, the AVERAGE food stamp beneficiary is getting $126 for food. So if they're getting ~30k in other benefits, maybe there's a problem there, but I'm talking about food. I say $126 a month is bare sustenance levels and is practically inviting malnutrition or hunger, take your pick. I know from my life experience, I've known PLENTY of working poor who didn't have as much money for food as they needed. Unless you think the USDA is lying about SNAP benefits, in which case, we can't really discuss this further, because we each have different information, which leads to different conclusions.