Feds: ‘Poor’ Consume Like The Rich

Lobbyists to the left of me, leeches to the right, here I am, actually worrying about bills...

Okay.

So, I've got a roof over my head.

And, yeah, I've eaten.

And I've got a car and a computer and a DVD player.






BUT SOME RICH DUDE IS OUT THERE DRIVING A LAMBORGHINI!!!

A FRIGGIN' LAMBORGHINI!!!



SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!

Edit: Never mind.

Why do you hate the poooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck income inequality. What is this 'income equality' bullshit, anyway? Someone who's smarter, plays the right cards, puts in the work (be it physical or mental work), finds a way to make money earn him (or her) money. Why the fuck should they get as little pay as a high-school dropout construction worker? These fuckheads want to talk about fair, well what the fuck is fair about that? No human society, ever, has been fair.

Not one, not ever. It's life, snowflake, grow the fuck up. The way Skin sees it, these 'income equality' horse's-asses should be summarily shot on sight, because they pose a clear and present danger not the the United States, but to sane human beings all over the planet.

My first question is how many of those things did they pay for outright vs on a "buck a day" plan?

Then I have to wonder how many of these items (TiVo excluded, obviously) might have been owned before their income went to shit? Seriously-when's the last time you even saw a VCR in a store, let alone VHS tapes? I'd expect most of the vehicles fall into that category too, unless they bought a clunker off the last person who couldn't afford to keep it roadworthy...

Finally,part of the problem is likely many of these folks were middle class... now they're trying to maintain a lifestyle that isn't within the means they once had.

How is that a problem?

Sophistry based on emotion has arrived.

It's, "Why don't I have a $700,000 a year job?!"

Because you didn't go to the right college and then impress the shit out of your first employer.

"Well, I didn't go to the right college! I didn't have an Ivy League education just handed to me!"

Well, you didn't go to a decent college, choose a useful course, impress anyone and then pursue a relevant real world job, thereby impressing other employers, and beging working your way up.

Of course, all things being equal, not everyone can be rich. Maybe you should learn to appreciate what you've got.

But no.

:wah: I'm entitled to be rich! No, you're fucking not. You're entitled to try.

In one single post, Ramen has suddenly proved that there is no differences in living standards in the United States.

:circlejerk:

I also wonder, of the people who think "the poor" are so wonderfully well off, how many would actually trade places with them.

That it has:

Disney wisdom tells me to pity the rich, for they don't really have the wealth of happiness because their lives aren't truly fulfilling.

It's not just the stuff you have, it's how hard it is to get those things and how fucked you are if one emergency happens.
Getting a tortoise kept me from saving any money for 3 months.
If I were to get in a wreck and get a $900 hospital bill, I'd be paying that for an entire year, and that would keep me from buying all the snacks here and there that perk me up and keep my stress levels down. I wouldn't be able to afford anything but the basics, and in a grad program, that is dangerous. With no escape, I'm a lot more likely to drop everything and give up. If anything worse happens, I'm looking at loans and debts for a long time. A fucked up budget is just one disease away!

All I can do is plan for the best, I know. But I think these surveys need to stop taking into account what people have, and start taking into account what went into obtaining these things, how their budgets were affected, and how capable they are of taking a blow like appendicitis without fucking their credit.

Cause let's be honest, I can buy a DVD player ($20) and a $5 DVD. Does that suddenly make me middle class?

Allow me to run that through my Cheney/Haliburton neocon translator (patent pending)...

Obviously if those 70 percent who have a VCR would just sell it, they could live off the proceeds and not be a drain on society anymore.

I mean, a used VCR must fetch a pretty penny, right? I think I paid $15 for mine at a yard sale about 10 years ago. By now the prices must be even better, and here these parasites are, sitting on a freakin' gold mine!

Exactly.

Stuff like this:

Is a notoriously poor measure of anything related to poverty.

Car? Yeah I got a car, that' I've owned for 4 year and is 18 years old and was bought with one-time money in order to get me out from under one of those "tote the note" dealers who was charging me an arm and a leg in payments (sort of a rent-a-center plan).

TVs? Yes, we have two - bought one from a pawn shop for $50 and one at a yard sale for $25.

furniture? given to us after the fire; Appliances? all bought used and none of them for more than $125; DVD player, VCR, and so forth...all the same.

The only thing we own that was bought "new" is the PS3 that was the kids Christmas a few years ago, which was a refurbished model from Game Stop.

I can't remember the last time I bought a new item of clothing for full price at a retail store (except shoes).

and none of that stuff, except the PS3, cost enough to pay one electric bill.

Bow that's not to say there are not nimrods out there scamming some way to draw enough benefits to pimp the 42" flat-screen or the Escelade. Surely their are. But saying "you have two TVs so therefore you are not poor!!!!!" is not a bit more rational than anything Obama ever said.

All that sort of rhetoric does is provide knee-jerk reactions with little logic behind it and i'd have expected better from Scott Rasmussen.

You nailed it when you talk about people having bought stuff when things were better. obviously if you were working up until, say, 3 years ago and you are in poverty now you might very well still have the TV, Tivo, game console, or even car that you bought then. It's just a nonsense argument.

then there's the stuff bought second hand, the stuff that was a gift, the stuff bought with one-time money like a tax refund...none of this stuff tells you anything about whether the given family can pay their electric bill this month.



None of this is me denying that there are folks drawing that shouldn't be, or making any comment on "incentivizing laziness" or whatever.

Just about the measures cited in the OP.

Heartless fuck. Those VCRs could be Betamax.

I actually think what you wrote is kind of racist. Jus sayin

That's an incredibly stupid response. I wasn't asking for more, I'm simply stating that the article needs to reconsider what poverty means. This isn't the third world. People can have trouble paying bills and be in uncomfortable financial situations while still having enough to eat. It happens. I think it's time these people who do those surveys realized that.

I'll say it again:

I'm asking for a re-definition of poverty in America, not for a handout.

The horror. Sounds more like "You got money now, better spend it all while the going's good!"

In my humble opine, of course.

It's amazing. "Redefining poverty" and "this isn't the third world" have vastly different meanings between you and I.

Humble? You brag about your penis to complete strangers! Sir, you are not humble!

False premise.

the VAST majority of the "not rich" are not aspiring to be "rich"

Wanting to have enough to indulge yourself just a LITTLE bit (say with a takeout pizza once every couple of months) and still get the bills paid...wanting to have enough to afford insurance or at least the cost of private pay (right now I have a broken tooth just rotting out of my head because i don't have the money to have it pulled, and that's just one example)...wanting to be able to not live in fear of whether you can come up with enough cash to pay the electric bill, or buy insurance for your car, or hell, even change the oil (even if you do it yourself the oil and filter will run you $20 or more) ....

the list goes on and on and on. Saying "we can't all be rich" completely misses the point. Unless you define rich much differently than most do.

99% of motherfuckers are indeed motherfuckers. You know this. I know this.

Though every situation is different, that is a factor for many people, and it is a problem.

Cracked had an article a week or so ago titled "The 5 Stupidest Habits You Develop Growing Up Poor." One of the items is:

There definitely are a number of ways in which poverty is self-perpetuating.

It's because poverty in America hasn't been the same as destitution for decades. I've lived in the third world and what I saw isn't poverty, it's destitution and it's misery and it would never fly here.
I think, when dealing with words like "poverty" in reference to any first world country, the focus should be on access to health care and factors like the cost of repairing a car or air conditioning unit, and how they affect everyday life and budgeting. This is purely for sociological purposes, for the sake of a definition. I do think the issue of poverty is overstated, and welfare is too extensive and corrupt. I think we're on a similar wavelength when it comes to welfare. For example, I qualify for food stamps but refuse to get them, since that would be leeching the system.

They call and nag me every day. I start to worry if they don't.

Lots of them poverty stricken people are driving cars a lot nicer than my 1995 kia sportage. Damn illegals are driving brand new F250s and getting free health care.