Some quotes about poverty in the United States

"There is no material poverty in the U.S. Here are a few facts about people whom the Census Bureau labels as poor. Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor”, report that 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. Poor Americans have more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. What we have in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare state."

"The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it’s 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn’t hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it’s 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts?
There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data “going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery … showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940″? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity?"

"No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault.
If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. It turns out that a married couple, each earning the minimum wage, would earn an annual combined income of $30,000. The Census Bureau poverty line for a family of two is $15,500, and for a family of four, it’s $23,000. By the way, no adult who starts out earning the minimum wage does so for very long."

" Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the “need” to deal with some aspect of poverty. In a column of mine in 1995, I pointed out that at that time, the nation had spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, and with that princely sum, “you could purchase every U.S. factory, all manufacturing equipment, and every office building. With what’s left over, one could buy every airline, trucking company and our commercial maritime fleet. If you’re still in the shopping mood, you could also buy every television, radio and power company, plus every retail and wholesale store in the entire nation”. Today’s total of $18 trillion spent on poverty means you could purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some."


Clearly this is some uneducated racist hack spewing the conservative party line with absolutely no critical evaluation of the tryth.

Just as clearly, the plight of the poor in the US is comparable to the plight of the poor worldwide.

7 innocent police officers

At this point in the "officially sanctioned" rioting in Baltimore, we have seven police officers injured, one who is described as "non responsive".  

But hey, the folks on the left will throw out crap like this in order to explain these things.

 "...strong reactions are not arising from a sense of "disappointment," but a deep and serious concern about justice and oppression..."

Does anyone seriously think that injuring seven innocent people is an appropriate way to deal with a percieved lack of "justice" and "oppression".

Lefty politicians say and do the strangest things.

Doesn't it seem strange to celebrate earth day and to warn of the dangers of climate change by leaving your mansion, hopping in your armored limo, following and being followed by a fleet of full sized armored SUV's, drive to the airport, hop on your private jumbo jet, fly 1500 miles, drive your fleet of limos/SUV's out to the middle of a swamp, then do it all in reverse.   All for a photo op.


Doesn't it seem strange that there is actual proof that Hillary lied about the reason why she had a private e-mail server, and her supporters don't seem to mind?

Doesn't it seem strange that Hillary wants to "topple" the one percent, yet isn't starting by divesting herself of the approximately $100,000,000 that she and Bill have accumulated in the last 10 years or so.   Does anyone really think she'll be "toppling" herself?

Doesn't it seem strange that a woman who has managed to accumulate over $100,000,000 for doing nothing productive, claims she's out to help the middle class?

No title

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-early-christians-believe-in-substitutionary-atonement

"a moral wrong"

"What I am saying is that, today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong."

"Denying women basic liberties is a moral wrong."

"Forcing women (or anyone) into a marriage is a moral wrong."

"Deliberately targeting and killing children in wartime is a moral wrong."


These statements appear to be statements of Fact.   It appears that the claim is that X is "a moral wrong", and that this claim is a Factual claim.

If these claims are Factual, then by what objective standard are these "a moral wrong"?

Have these practices always been "a moral wrong"?

If one looks at the phrase " today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong.", it seems to indicate that while slavery is "today" "a moral wrong"; at some previous point in history it was not "a moral wrong".

It seems strange to me that the concept of "a moral wrong" would not be both consistent and objective.

So, we have these two statements.

" Just because slavery was accepted as moral then does not mean it IS moral.

" Can you not agree with me that slavery is a moral wrong. Period?"

One which argues that slavery was "moral' at one point, while the other argues that "slavery is a moral wrong. Period?"   (Strange punctuation is from the original quote)

The whole "accepted as moral"v. "IS moral", seems to indicate some confusion.   It certainly confuses me.

It seems like slavery is either an objective "moral wrong" or it is not.    The concept that morality is defined by acceptance seems strange to me.   If that is the case, then it would be accurate to call Hitler, Stalin, and Mao "moral".    Personally, I've never thought of them as moral.

Of course, the question of the innate morality of humanity is still open.

It seems that those on the left can get away with saying just about anything.

I'm not talking about the guy who is slated to replace John Stewart and his comments that certainly appear to be insensitive and anti-semitic.

Nor am I talking about the pro Hillary guy who came out with the list of words that can't be used to describe Hillary.    Although, it seems strange that you can call her disingenuous when she gets caught lying.

Nor am I talking about the death threats that Sarah Palin received on social media, which didn't seem to bother those on the left.


No, I'm talking about a conversation I had today with a co worker.   Literally out of nowhere this person said "Yes, I'll like (insert the name of a conservative ex congressperson here) when they're dead.".

I can only imagine the response had I said "yeah, I'll like P-Bo when he's dead.", or any other liberal icon.

I could be wrong about this, but I know that I (and most of my conservative friends) would never say something like this.   Certainly not in a conversation where others might actually have positive feelings toward the object of the comment.   

It just seems a bit strange.

Untitled

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2015/03/repost-most-offensive-verse-in-bible.html