SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (481971)10/27/2003 12:03:13 AM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
GDP counts debt spending as a positive and environmental destruction for profit as a positive. Buth are negatives. And more deficit spending just creates a larger illusion.
Nobody even knows how huge our debt is now. We're just spending and spending on everything but needy people and the environment.



To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (481971)10/27/2003 12:13:08 AM
From: JBTFD  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
One thing I would like to point out is that the government figures for poverty are based on income for a particular number of dependents in the family.

I think a more accurate measure may be to define those who have a net worth of less than, say $20,000 as poor. My guess is this criteria would put the poverty number a lot higher.

This site:

cityvisioninc.org

says that 31% of US households have no net worth to speak of.



To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (481971)10/27/2003 2:07:20 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 769667
 
Hey, buddy, I saw those same poverty rate statistics you did. Little googling is needed to find them. You just have a much higher estimate of its intelligence than I do. One thing at a time; let's not confuse the poor thing.

And it's reply justifies my "socialist hogwash" comment. The real problem here is that hogwash is all AS will ever drink.