I guess that's lights out for the Cain campaign

Anyone who is given a million dollars to start a business didn't do it anywhere near on their own nor should they be talking about what 'anyone else' can do. I think hard work can still get someone 'success' in this country but hard work and a million dollars would make it a million times easier.

 

I went back to see what exactly started this tangent and found the above statements. I think IQ's point was that the poor are becoming a new minority class in this country but their numbers are certainly increasing so maybe one day they will be a majority in this country. A sad commentary on the state of this country for sure. Then Okie asked QI to define poor. OK, the only people that really have no concept of being poor are the wealthy. Even Okie said later in the thread that he had experienced being poor but doesn't seem to be able to define it today. Short memory I guess. IQ made a genuine effort to layout what being poor feels like to many in his next post to which Okie continued to feign ignorance of the concept or any plausible definition of being poor again even though he later admitted that he had experienced being poor.

I just don't buy that anyone who has lived in America can't define what being poor is about. You can't see imagines of Detroit's blighted landscape or people being thrown out of their homes onto the streets or farms being taken by banks and not realize what people who have nothing left is all about without closing your eyes. You have to try really hard today not to see people that are suffering in this economy. You have to be able to deny from the comfort of your own situation the millions that have been left behind and find themselves lower on the economic ladder than they ever dreamed possible. You really have to be able to turn a blind eye to everything many are struggling to endure. But then again, the Right-wingers have had a lot of practice at doing this so naturally they are better at it.

 

You're missing the point. I certainly DO know what poor is. I've asked IQLess to provide his definition. Thus far, he's spun like a top.

 

Well, here is an example of someone who is poor and the Right-wing's response to being poor. Let me put this way, their response is cold! Mary is poor.

Northeast states cut heating aid to poor

WASHINGTON — Mary Power is 92 and worried about surviving another frigid New England winter because deep cuts in federal home heating assistance benefits mean she probably can't afford enough heating oil to stay warm.

She lives in a drafty trailer in Boston's West Roxbury neighborhood and gets by on $11,148 a year in pension and Social Security benefits. Her heating aid help this year will drop from $1,035 to $685. With rising heating oil prices, it probably will cost her more than $3,000 for enough oil to keep warm unless she turns her thermostat down to 60 degrees, as she plans.

 

I don't see where you've asked IQ specifically for his definition of poor but you did ask for a definition of poor which he did provide but apparently his definition wasn't adequate because you then argued that you just couldn't see it. What was he supposed to do in this case, come up with a definition of poor that was both his own definition but that also satisfied your idea of poor as well?
To me, and I know this is just my take on the conversation, it seems like no definition he could have provided or any other definitions that have been provided since will satisfy you. I just have to believe that setting up impossible parameters is just an avoidance technique more than anything else. You do seem to fall back on "define" this or that quite often as a way to dodge any substantive conversation on any number of issues. I think that your pattern speaks for itself.
I have nothing against defining complicated terms or issues in any conversation but there are just so many good definitions of poor that overlap quite easily with each other that I see little to not logical reason to nitpick a relatively simple term like poor. I know that you can do better than that if you actually choose to do so but you seem content to play this silly game instead. Is the conversation really going to go awry if we have slightly different interpretations of the idea of poor people? I seriously doubt it!

 

Post #152. Post #188. The very first lines. You must have missed them.

 

I suppose this is as good as any indicator of what "poor" is. Since no one here seems to be able to throw out a dollar figure on what "poor" is, we'll just have to go with Gallup ($2,000 per month or less):
Gallup: Obama’s Approval Drops Below 50 Percent Among Poorest Americans; No Longer Enjoys Majority Approval In Any Income Class

April 13, 2011
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama’s approval among the poorest Americans dropped to an all-time low of 48 percent last week, according to the Gallup poll, leaving the president with less-than-majority approval among all income brackets reported in Gallup's presidential approval surveys.

Each week, Gallup publishes the president’s average approval rating for the previous week among four income brackets: those who earn $2,000 per month or less, those who earn between $2,000 and $4,999 per month, those who earn between $5,000 and $7,499 per month, and those who earn $7,500 per month or more.

For the week of April 4-10, Obama’s approval rating was 48 percent among those making $2,000 or less per month, and 46 percent among those in each of the three higher income brackets.

This was only the second time in his presidency that Obama’s average weekly approval rating among the poorest Americans had dropped below 50 percent. The first time was three weeks ago—in the week of March 21-27—when his approval dropped to 49 percent among Americans who earn $2,000 per month or less. (Two weeks ago, the president's approval among this income bracket rebounded to 52 percent before dropping to 48 percent last week.)

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gal...cent-among-poorest-americans-no-longer-enjoys

 

This thread has been mostly non-informative but I did learn one thing...I am damn glad I don't live in the Northeast. Over $3000 just for the heating season! We paid just over $1900 for the whole year...heating, cooling, electric, everything.

 

I will keep my mouth shut!

 

Why don't you throw a little honesty into the mix whenever you post something like this? Let's take a look at the rest of the article you referenced. God only knows where you come up with statements like "the Right-wing's response to being poor" and most of the other drivel you post. Here, let's refute your assertion about the "Right-wing" together:
__________________________________________________________________________

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mary Power is 92 and worried about surviving another frigid New England winter because deep cuts in federal home heating assistance benefits mean she probably can't afford enough heating oil to stay warm.

She lives in a drafty trailer in Boston's West Roxbury neighborhood and gets by on $11,148 a year in pension and Social Security benefits. Her heating aid help this year will drop from $1,035 to $685. With rising heating oil prices, it probably will cost her more than $3,000 for enough oil to keep warm unless she turns her thermostat down to 60 degrees, as she plans.
"I will just have to crawl into bed with the covers over me and stay there," said Power, a widow who worked as a cashier and waitress until she was 80. "I will do what I have to do."
Thousands of poor people across the Northeast are bracing for a difficult winter with substantially less home heating aid coming from the federal government.

"They're playing Russian roulette with people's lives," said John Drew, who heads Action for Boston Community Development, Inc., which provides aid to low-income residents in Massachusetts.

The issue could flare just as New Hampshire votes in the Republican presidential primary.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine (do you see that, Moen: REPUBLICAN), said she hopes the candidates will take up the region's heating aid crunch because it underscores how badly the country needs a comprehensive energy policy.

Several Northeast states already have reduced heating aid benefits to families as Congress considers cutting more than $1 billion from last year's $4.7 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that served nearly 9 million households.

Families in New England, where the winters are long and cold and people rely heavily on costly oil heat, are expected to be especially hard hit. Many poor and elderly people on fixed incomes struggle with rising heating bills that can run into thousands of dollars. That can force them to cut back on other necessities like food or medicine.

"The winter of 2011-12 could be memorable for the misery and suffering of thousands of frigid households," New Hampshire's Concord Monitor newspaper said in an editorial. "Heating oil prices are expected to hit record highs, and federal fuel assistance may reach a record low for recent years."

Higher home heating oil prices and more families seeking aid due to the sour economy are straining resources. There's a 10 percent surge in new applicants in Boston, Drew said.
"Our whole program could hit a rock soon," said Mark Wolfe of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.

Families can expect to pay, on average, about $3,300 to heat a home with oil this winter in New England, Wolfe said. That's about $500 more than last winter. About half of the region's homes use oil heat.

Congress, which is locked in a bitter battle over reducing spending, still must decide how much money to give the program for the budget year that began Oct. 1.
In fall 2008, amid concerns about rising fuel prices, the government nearly doubled fuel assistance, releasing $5.1 billion to states for the following winter. (Join me in the Way-Back Machine and let's look to see who was president in the fall of 2008... oh, do you see that? It was President Bush, yes a REPUBLICAN).

But last February, President Barack Obama proposed cutting the program nearly in half (do you also see that, Moen? The DEMOCRAT president wanted to cut the program nearly in half), calling for about $2.5 billion. The House is considering $3.4 billion for fuel assistance (if you're unaware, Moen, the House is majority REPUBLICAN) , while the Senate reviews a $3.6 billion proposal.

Snowe (remember now, she's a REPUBLICAN), along with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are pushing for $4.7 billion, last year's funding level, but they face long odds.

The government has given an initial round of funding, $1.7 billion, to the states.

In Maine, one of the coldest states, the average benefit has been reduced by about $500. The state's average benefit last winter was about $800 among 63,842 households served. The average income of recipients was $16,757. About 80 percent of Maine households use oil heat.

"It's a very serious situation," Dale McCormick, director of MaineHousing, a state agency that administers heating aid, said. "We can't send out money we don't have."
That view is shared by home heat aid advocates across New England and into New York and Pennsylvania. Most of those states have cut benefits. New Hampshire has tightened eligibility requirements.

Vermont's average benefit was cut from $866 to $474. New York's maximum benefit this year is $500, down from $700 last winter. Pennsylvania's minimum benefit is dropping from $300 last year to $100, Wolfe said.

"We have a lot of terrified people who can't see how they are going to survive," said Drew.

http://news.yahoo.com/northeast-states-cut-heating-aid-poor-100438979.html

 

Northeast typically democrat liberal controlled areas. With a few Repubicans here and independent here and there but the vast majority are donkeys. lets see. Feds are controlled by
dems right now. Lets see Dems say there is global warming or climate change, whatever gets them millions as they prepare to give away to third world nations billions.

Sorry but maybe Gore should keep some money here and stop making himself richer sending money elsewhere.

 

Thank you.

 

LOL... you made me laugh. I see you enjoy the word "vitriol", I've seen you use it quite a bit lately and have to wonder... was it on a word-a-day calender or something?

...did you read that? Did that waste your time? LOL

 

This is why context is important. You didn't include the fact he was given over a million dollars by his parents. He was clueless. I see that a lot in the wealthy.

 

LOL... I find it funny how you lie like that and expect reasonable people to believe you. You really do have some hard-liner qualities. Thankfully, anti-socialists like yourself are doomed in the long-run... and it can't happen too soon lol

 

My gf's mom is in a very similar circumstance. Her aid has dropped to just over $300 this year for heating. We help her as much as we can. She's 80 and lives alone but we visit her many days a week. It's not easy since we're struggling ourselves.

 

Exactly... he's just with me. That's his choice. If he wants to act the fool let him. I play my game, not his lol

 

...yet you "don't see it" is your excuse? ... LOL ... keeeeep it comin'

 

(winks knowingly) Ohhhhh, you wanted a specific dollar figure to "debate". Why didn't you sayyyy soooo. LOL

LOL... To you maybe, and other like-minded people who want to misinform. But, I have my own question: How long have you been itchin' to post this? Don't bother answering... I've known that answer for quite a while now.

Highlighting "poorest" doesn't equate to the poor no matter how hard you try to make people believe that. Half of America is in your figures lol ...but don't let that stop you from trying.

 

Sure, this guy appears to have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth but I can give you hundreds (or more) examples of people who have made successes of themselves without the benefit of being born into privilege. To say it can't be done simply because your example features someone wealthy is silly (but it does fit nicely into the far left's nanny-state narrative).