America: 75% 'haves,' 25% 'have-nots'

[DesertFox]

Investors Business Daily

As Americans take time this week to count their blessings and think of others less fortunate, they can take comfort in knowing that those who put themselves in the latter category are far fewer than they probably realize.

Contrary to politicians and even polls that claim the U.S. is a nation deeply split between "haves" and "have-nots," a new IBD/TIPP Poll finds that three of four of us (75%) consider ourselves "haves."

This includes even those who make the least money. Fully 60% of those with incomes of $30,000 a year or less count themselves as "haves" vs. 34% who do not.

More (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280109607660233)

[Seabee]

The only problem I have with this article is they base the prosperity of Americans on material possessions. Let's talk about savings, investments, debt to income ration, pricing, etc. I would agree materially we are better off, but to me, that is a sad indicator of economic prosperity.
Okay, now I am going to duck behind some cover and concealment and reload, cause I think I am going to have some incoming.

[Lubbock]

America: 75% 'haves,' 25% 'have-nots'

Without reading the article, I will make one observation: As opposed to places like Pakistan, Somolia, India, Banglidesh, etc., etc., etc.,: 1% Haves, 99% have-nots.

One reason between the Haves and Have-Nots, worldwide: Freedom.

If IBD is trying to make me feel guilty because I am a "Have," be it savings/investments, as well as material possessions, they will have to try harder.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In the November 2007 issue of The Limbaugh Letter, Rush wrote an article entitled, "Every American Is a 'Have'". His point can be summed up with the following pull quote: "Vast economic opportunity surrounds every single citizen of this bountiful country." There's no reason for anyone in the U.S. to be a "have not" if one is willing to work hard and not rely on government handouts.

[PrezLeefun]

I know I "have" a roof over my head, clothes on my back, food in my stomach, and some knowledge in my head.

Can't ask for more without being silly.

[DesertFox]

The only problem I have with this article is they base the prosperity of Americans on material possessions. Let's talk about savings, investments, debt to income ration, pricing, etc. I would agree materially we are better off, but to me, that is a sad indicator of economic prosperity."Economic" by definition means money and material possessions. To be "prosperous" is to have money and the freedom from want that it endows. It has never meant anything else.

[Maggie_T]

I propose that the "have lots" give half of their "havings" to the "have nots". Can you imagine how that would help them?

Think about it. Half of what John Edwards, Blabs Streisand, Steve Spielberg, Michael Moore, Al Gore, the Clintons, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, etc. all put into a nice piggy bank for the poor. Money that would actually help a good cause, instead of creating mischief.

[DesertFox]

I propose that the "have lots" give half of their "havings" to the "have nots".Standing O.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/Clap.gif

[Maggie_T]

Thank you, Foxy. But remember that I mean the leftist "have a lot" only. :evilgrin: Just so that the over-exploited taxpayers can be given a much-deserved relief.

Otherwise, I risk sounding like your regular commie.

[DesertFox]

Just about all the megarich anymore are Lefty, Mags.

[Maggie_T]

Well, that's true. :rolleyes:

[Phil Osophical]

There are no have-nots in the United States. There are some who have more than others but there are no have-nots.

From the National Review:

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 is not 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 far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

50 percent own their homes -- three bedrooms, one and half baths, garage and patio.
80 percent have air-conditioning.
75 percent own cars -- 35 percent own two cars or more.
97 percent have color televisions, 50 percent two or more.
80 percent have DVDs and VCRs.
65 percent have cable or satellite
90 percent have microwaves, stereos and dishwashers.
100 percent have free medical care.

[DesertFox]

Phil, need a link to that article, please.

[PrezLeefun]

Sorry Phil but it must be said I see a whole lot of have nots on my way to and from school. I am not giving them an excuse but alas they exist.

[DesertFox]

I suspect that nearly all those who really don't have anything are either mentally ill or choose to be that way. That's as opposed to most anywhere else (Africa, the Far East, Latin America) where many, many folks live in absolute poverty and have no real way out, ever.

[DoctorDoom]

Phil, need a link to that article, please.Much of it is from a Walter Williams column of 10/31/2007, Are the poor getting poorer? (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams103107.php3). It was discussed here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52370).

[Seabee]

"Economic" by definition means money and material possessions. To be "prosperous" is to have money and the freedom from want that it endows. It has never meant anything else.

Yup, Fox, I would mostly agree with that statement, if not for one small fact. The material possessions most Americans have acrued is based on credit, not money in hand. Therefore to me it is simply representative that while we have more "stuff," we do not have more money in hand. It is a good indicator of that we are not as impoverished, in terms of living conditions, as most people would like you to think. This is no excuse for most people who have gone beyond their means with credit, it is an observation of a problem as I see it.

[Lazarus]

Haves vs Have Nots......... We're talkin about wealth, not AIDS, right?:question:

[DesertFox]

:lol:

[Rhino]

Much of it is from a Walter Williams column of 10/31/2007, Are the poor getting poorer? (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams103107.php3). It was discussed here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52370).Or this column, though the numbers don't all match exactly.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=

[Maggie_T]

As long as there is ONE commie - lefty/socialist/progressive :rolleyes:/whathaveyou - standing, there will ALWAYS be poor people. They feed off each other: commies depend on "the poor" for their votes; "the poor" depend on commies for the hand-me-downs, or "coerced charity," if you prefer.

It's that simple.

[DesertFox]

Background reading: Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, a history of the calamitous 14th Century.

[Phil Osophical]

Much of it is from a Walter Williams column of 10/31/2007, Are the poor getting poorer? (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams103107.php3). It was discussed here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52370).

Hi Doc,

I can't seem to get on the tech help forum to ask a how-to question. I've forgotten and I'm embarrassed to ask how you insert a link, but instead of displaying the link's URL address, you just simply post a "click here" or "here," which shows the link (as you did in your message above, which is a good example).

Would appreciate it.

[Kathy30]

The have nots have so much that they live as if they are independently wealthy. There are a lot of have nots around here, a LOT. Try asking one if they want to work and make money. You will get a refusal ranging from the polite to the angry "don't insult me like that".

If whether or not someone "has" were judged on a critera of basic needs being met, there would be no have-nots. To the down and out it is all about getting basic needs met. Once that happens, ball game over, they have no interest at all in bettering their circumstances. I include the homeless living in the street who consider that meeting a basic need.

[Trance]

And how many of the 'have-nots' are motivated to better themselves, instead of just waiting for their monthly welfare check?

[Kathy30]

And how many of the 'have-nots' are motivated to better themselves, instead of just waiting for their monthly welfare check?

My experience tells me none. Believe me, I've tried. There are many many of the very very poor. They live in the street, they live in one of the transient hotels. They live in subsidized housing. They panhandle, they go from door to door begging for work. They live on general relief, welfare or SSI. They get other assistance, medical care, food stamps, flop vouchers. There are many kitchens and pantries available to them for food. Churches give food and clothing. There is enormous help for the very very poor. All the help it gives is to be poor! They are being helped into being secure in abject poverty. If they ever had a human soul yearning to provide for themselves that left long ago.

Janis Joplin said Freedom is Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose. She was right. These people are totally completely free. Working is a tether they neither want nor need. When one comes begging, they are only begging for money. The tears in their eyes that they only want some work is as phony as the limp they affect. Offer one a job and you will find first, the busiest person in the world. Donald Trump has more time on his hands than these people. They all have calendars. Offer them a day's work and they will consult the "book". If you give them ten dollars today, they can come Wednesday at 10 and work for two hours. You won't see them on Wednesday, but you will see them on Friday when they come asking for more money. I've hired so many hoping that I'd find ONE that wanted to work. For one day, maybe.

The best I found is a severe alcoholic who does an excellent job when he shows up and needs more money for booze. He shows up at his convenience, works extremely hard, gets paid and I don't see him until he's out of cash. I know that he gets his SSI check the first of the month so I won't see him that entire week. He gets SSI because his alcoholisim is a disability and the state pays him to get drunk and stay that way. In his mind he has a part time job of getting drunk. The state is paying for him to get drunk so he's good at his job. If he didn't get drunk, he wouldn't get paid.

The problem is not that there are poor people. The problem is that people are simply not poor enough. If we expect to lift people out of poverty we cannot pay them to be poor. Poverty needs to be painful. The poor don't need to be merely hungry, they need to be so hungry that their ribs stick out and their bellies are swollen. They don't need a warm coat against the cold, they need to be so cold that their joints are swollen with chllblains and their faces are blue.

Helping the poor be poor by making poverty comfortable destroys their spirit and crushes their initiative. All you get by helping the poor is more poor.