Jack Kemp used to say that it was fine to say a person should pull himself up by his bootstraps, but it didn't work for people who don't have boots.
47% of Americans would have to Borrow or Sell Something to Cover an Unexpected Expense of $400
- Thread starter fredjr82
- Start date
You lefties are sure a bigoted bunch. Look at my post again. I didn't mention skin color at all. You are the ones that assumed it. I stated quite clearly why I know they are poor. I watched them use not one but multiple government assistance cards to buy their groceries. Then your buddy claimed I assumed they were poor because they were black when it's quite clear that you two made the assumption that they were black on your own.
Being black doesn't make them poor. The houses on my street range from 200-400k and half of them are owned by black people, most of which came from the surrounding area which includes 50k houses as well as Government subsidized apartments. By the way I'm pretty sure needing to live in subsidized housing means one is poor, yet there are a number of nice cars in those parking lots as well. I'm not saying that's the case with all poors, but it is far too common to ignore.
Our parents' generation was very, very private about most everything, including money.
I've never used a debit card, and to be brutally honest, I don't understand how they are different from a credit card.
I still use checks, probably 4 or 5 per month. I just looked at the check register, and in the past month I've written checks to the state and the feds for estimated income taxes, to the guys who do some landscaping, to the maid service, and a couple related to golf -- the latter is because I'm treasurer of the men's association, and I collect cash from the members and then write a personal check to the course or the association's bank account.
Other than that, it's credit cards or direct fund transfers.
Seriously? It works like a check, but easier. The money just comes straight out of your account. Do you not use ATM's?
You didn't even attempt to answer my question. If they're driving new cars, have all new stuff, and talking on new iPhones, why would you assume that they are poor? Your argument is riddled with assumptions.
Kids born in bangladesh don't have boots. Kids born in this country, no matter their color, have been given golden running shoes. Opportunity is there for everyone. Have you learned nothing from THOMAS BARNES?
Opportunity is most definitely not there for everybody and the Republicans seem to want it that way. The Republicans are working hard to cut education, gut healthcare, remove social safety nets, and reduce wages. Seems like all the GOP cares about these days are the rich. They can't figure out how to fund higher education and fix our crumbling infrastructure, but they sure have no problem getting $250 billion in tax cuts for billionaires done. What a crock.
Wow Huey pull your head out of the sand. Both sides are a bunch of crooks. One set of crooks just happens to have you wrapped around their finger.
Is this an admission that the GOP supports the rich at the expense of everyone else?
I thought they openly admitted that and were proud of it. I mean thats central to conservative philosophy.
Because I'm wondering how the Dems, a party that is fighting for worker rights, higher wages, more education, access to healthcare, and fixing our infrastructure can be lumped in with the GOP, a party that thinks the rich need more and everyone else should just be happy with what they've got?
For the third time. I WATCH THEM USE GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE CARDS IN THE GROCERY STORE WHILE TALKING ON THE SMART PHONE AND THEN I SEE THEM GET IN A NICE CAR. Why are you so dense. I already posted that twice. I am not making assumptions. I am relaying what I have personally witnessed with my own two eyes.
It was noted on the news that they folks arrested for clapping at graduation had to pay $500 to get out. Half of America it seems would still be in jail for that offence. Something to think about.
What do you mean, "most poor people either have no cell phones, or have ones that aren't smart?" Saying it that way allows you to possibly debate both sides for when someone like me comes along and tells you that 84% of people with an income of less than $30k own cell phones. Furthermore, 64% of Americans own smart phones, and this data is over a year old so one can probably assume that is a little low for where it is currently. To say that most people of any demographic don't own cell phones (unless it's those aged less than 10) is terribly inaccurate.
http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphone-ownership-demographics/
I did some digging and found the smartphone ownership rate of those making less than $30,000 a year. It's less than half at 43%, but I'm willing to bet that if you only looked at people close to the poverty line which is closer to $15,000 a year, smartphone ownership would be even less. But even if you just take the 43% figure, it still means that less than half of poor people own this technology, which means that it's a straight up lie to say that poor people all own brand new iPhones. There is no data to support such an absurd claim.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/
Not sure why you have to start yelling. And there is no national data that says that your average poor person owns a smartphone nor owns a late model car. You simply made all this up.
Well, if you ever want to take your head out of your ass, feel free to come on down to South St Petersburg and see for yourself. Also the OPs article refers to 47% of the population, not just those below the poverty line. In the meantime enjoy living in your own private Idaho.
Iowa, not Idaho. People always confuse us. I saw a T in the IMU that read University of Iowa, Idaho City, Ohio. Lots of truth in that shirt.
I'm also curious how you know what these people are driving? Did you scope them out in the checkout line, then specifically follow them out to the parking to keep tabs on what they were driving? If so, you're kind of creepy. If not, you basically just made the whole thing up.
"Your own private Idaho" is not a real place. It's a phrase.
"It means "living inside an Idaho potato", or a very small space. Metaphorically, it refers to someone who is not paying attention because he is daydreaming, or under the influence, or otherwise wrapped up within his own very narrow sphere of interest or frame of reference."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Own+private+Idaho.
Alright, this is getting far to tedious but I will walk you through it one last time. I shop at the grocery store. I get in line behind someone. They proceed to check out three times, once with an EBT card, once with some other assistance card. There are certain things they can't buy with each one so they manipulate the system to get what they want out of it. They then buy alcohol or tobacco with cash since the cards won't do that. (Some cards will let them get cash though) While they are checking out they are often texting or talking on a smart phone. Often they then proceed to the lotto desk and buy as many as forty or fifty lotto tickets. They often have a sleeve containing multiple bubble sheets with their prefered numbers. Once they finish their long checkout process, I'm check out, which happens a lot faster as I use a single credit or debit card for my items. Then I proceed to the parking lot, because that is where I am parked. I then witness them getting into either a late model Japanese car, or an older Cadillac or German luxury car. I'm not stalking, but I obviously recognize the person because I just impatiently witnessed their fifteen minute checkout process. Additionally, I drive through poor neighborhoods as there are many located around my neighborhood. I often see cars that are more valuable than the houses they are parked at. I see nice cars parked in the lots of section 8 housing. Now, I'm not saying this is the case for all poor people, but it is certainly quite common.
Heck, I have worked in apartment complexes here that are provided for the poor and helpless nearly free of charge. Most of the tenants have some mental issues, but don't require institutionalization. Even those people have flatscreen tvs and cell phones.
Here is a link to the organization: http://www.boleycenters.org.
It is private, but is heavily overseen by the government and receives much funding from public sources.
Now beyond what I've seen and posted the stats show that most of what we call poor in this country live better than 90%+ of the worlds population. They have multple televisions, cable or satellite TV, cell phones, smart phones, cars, air conditioning etc. This is cold hard fact, not opinion.
You can choose not to believe what you want, but I live around it and have spent time amongst the poor and truly needy. I will put my personal experience and documented statistics above your unsubstantiated conjecture all day long.
I'm not saying it is or isn't a lie to say all poor people own IPhones. What I am saying is a lie, which you glossed over, is your insinuation that most poor people don't own cell phones (half of your comment noted in my earlier post). I'm not a poor hater so let's not go there. I simply don't like either side making up guesses or "facts" such as what you stated that are clearly not true and getting away with using them in debates. If you want to change or amend the debate to just smart phones, I would still guess that the 43% figure is a lot higher than what you thought it was.
To be fair you're a grown man who flies kites. I find that a hell of a lot more creepy than you stalking people in a parking lot to see what they drive so you can feel better about yourself as you drive home (probably to get your Sponge Bob kite)
I don't understand this obsession with people having flat screen TVs and cell phones.
I picked up a terrific 50" LG TV a few months ago for $400. Plenty of off brand and smaller models available under $200. They last for years.
You can get a really good smart phones for $50-75 and excellent ones for under $150. My current favorite is the Sharp Aquos with 5" screen. Cost me $139 nearly a year ago. No, you won't get the very latest hardware for those prices but do you really need that?
Now if someone on assistance is sporting the latest iPhone 6+ on a $100/mo contract in their own name, then I would wonder. Ditto if they had the latest curved 75" AMOLED 4K TV. But if they are merely sporting good ordinary stuff, what's the big deal?
I picked up a terrific 50" LG TV a few months ago for $400. Plenty of off brand and smaller models available under $200. They last for years.
You can get a really good smart phones for $50-75 and excellent ones for under $150. My current favorite is the Sharp Aquos with 5" screen. Cost me $139 nearly a year ago. No, you won't get the very latest hardware for those prices but do you really need that?
Now if someone on assistance is sporting the latest iPhone 6+ on a $100/mo contract in their own name, then I would wonder. Ditto if they had the latest curved 75" AMOLED 4K TV. But if they are merely sporting good ordinary stuff, what's the big deal?
Those shirts have been around since at least 1974 when I first came to Iowa City!
I found some figures which break smartphone ownership down below $30,000. For those in poverty, the numbers are far below 43%. On average, they're probably closer a third.
http://quickwic.com/report-smartphone-ownership-low-income-americans/
I can see both sides. But I have to ask...how did you pay for that? Debit card? Cash? Credit card that you turned around and paid off that month?
If these people can't afford a $400 emergency, do you really think they have a couple hundred lying around for a TV? Or do you suppose it's more likely that, if they buy a new TV, they put it on a credit card (and then turn around and pay the $25-$35 minimum payment, maybe sometimes pay it late which results in a $35 fee and jacks up their interest rate, which boosts their minimum payment...)? Or perhaps they get it at a rent to own place and they end up paying $1000 for a $200 TV, $4000 for a couch (assuming they don't have it repo'd which leaves them with nothing to re-sell if they nee the money).
So to clarify. You watch strangers in line, studying exactly what they buy and how they pay for it. You then study personal things like to see if their texting or if they're talking on their phones. And then you follow them to the parking lot and watch them as they get in their cars. And then you keep mental notes on all of this. Yep. Certainly nothing creepy about this. Obsessed much?
We seem to have lost the context of the OP. We are discussing people that don't have $400 ready in cash or credit available in case of an emergency. It's not just the poor either. It's nearly half the country. Do you think it's responsible to buy a $400 tv if you won't have at least $400 left when you pay for it. A lot of the people get this stuff from rent a center and are paying monthly for it as well, rather than save up and buy it, they get on a plan and end up paying $700 for a $300 TV.
We've gotten off topic with this thread. Lemme help.
If someone says to you, "47% of Americans are terrible at managing their finances."
You should reply with, "God you're an idiot. Since every American is responsible for the type of government we have, and since our government is bankrupt, 100% of Americans are bad at money management. And at the very least 47% have moved from being bad at it to total fail."
If someone says to you, "47% of Americans are terrible at managing their finances."
You should reply with, "God you're an idiot. Since every American is responsible for the type of government we have, and since our government is bankrupt, 100% of Americans are bad at money management. And at the very least 47% have moved from being bad at it to total fail."
I fly grown man kites. http://www.slingshotsports.com/Home/Kites
And spongebob rocks. Who are you to dig on that yellow, porous, absorbent American Hero. He's a man of the people; puts on his square pants two legs and a time and makes an honest living cooking up delicious patties, and enjoys the simple pleasures in life. We could all learn from him.
Flies big boy Kites and devotes himself to cartoons. Have you met my friend Thomas Barnes?
I think you answered your own question. Yes, I think it's responsible to buy a $400 TV even if it leaves you with little in the bank - especially if the alternative is to buy/rent one for double its value.
Wouldn't the alternative be just not to buy it until you can afford it or buy the smaller cheaper one or a used one? Books are free at the library. Nobody needs a large flatscreen.
Stop sticking to your smartphone Argument. Again, your first post that I replied to was about regular cell phones. If you reply to me again, stick to that subject, which has been the crux of my replies.
So you think people remain poor because they are buying Nokia Bricks or Motorola Razrs? Did you flunk debate?
Let me get this straight, calling someone out during a debate for communicating horrendously inaccurate information as though it were fact is wrong? I'm assuming you, just like Huey, will sidestep that. Keep trying to change the argument into something it's not. Are you trying to teach him deflection, or is that what you learned from your years as debate team captain (am I giving you too much credit)?
I guess my question is why you're so hung up on me saying, "people in poverty don't typically own new smartphones. In fact, they don't tend to have smartphones period. Most poor people either have no cell phones, or have ones that aren't smart." I could have worded it a bit better, but the gist is that if poor people do own phones, they probably aren't smart. That's why I put that "either" in the last sentence.
And while we're on the topic of sidestepping, why have you sidestepped what Fred pointed out? Are you really arguing that flip phones are keeping people in poverty?
Did you read your own link? It says, "we see an average ownership of 39% for all low-income Americans." Are you extrapolating to poverty on your own? You don't have to answer that question, I know you are. Unless you can explain how that number is "probably" closer to a third. Keep sticking to the "facts" Huey.
Now we are getting somewhere. Like I said in my original post, wording your response the way you did allows you to change your argument at a later time. This was my issue from the get go and why I said it in my first response. If we want to debate, which is why we are here, we need to stick to verifiable facts in order to possibly come to some conclusion if that is even possible. The fact is that most poor people do own cell phones. I'm assuming you were posturing and trying to make your smart phone argument stronger by saying that most poor people don't have cell phones (half your argument). If you would have ommitted the part about most poor people not having cell phones I would have said nothing.
For the record, I have no problem with poor people owning cell phones. If it helps them with communicating, living, and maintaining a job that's great. That isn't what makes them poor. However, if they are like some of my poor friends/family and they get phone after phone, car after car, new thing after new thing and never quite figure out how to maintain those products, openly abuse those products, or just get sick of the "dullness" of that product and need a new one, this contributes to their being and remaining poor.
Similar threads
