Comments on: Tuesday Tid-Bits http://jscafenette.com/2008/01/15/tuesday-tid-bits-3/ Pull up a chair and sit a spell... Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:08:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sue http://jscafenette.com/2008/01/15/tuesday-tid-bits-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6537 Sue Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:40:26 +0000 http://jscafenette.com/2008/01/15/tuesday-tid-bits-3/#comment-6537 Thanks for the link Big Mo. It was an interesting read. As for the balance of your comment, ditto! :) Thanks for the link Big Mo. It was an interesting read.

As for the balance of your comment, ditto!

Smile

]]> By: Big Mo http://jscafenette.com/2008/01/15/tuesday-tid-bits-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6535 Big Mo Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:03:47 +0000 http://jscafenette.com/2008/01/15/tuesday-tid-bits-3/#comment-6535 Know what ticks me off about poverty in America? MOST of it in no way compares to poverty in the rest of the world. Except for cases of real American poverty, most of the "poor" in America are well-off or at least comfortable compared to the world's poor. The vast majority of American "poor" have food; TV (cable or satt); phones; computer; clothes; shelter; jobs or government checks (or both); working indoor toilets and plumbing; electricity; medical care; and so on. Much of the world's poor are fortunate if they have food OR shelter OR clothes OR occasional medical care OR etc. As Bret Stephens wrote (in an article speaking of a much larger context): "A nation in which the poor are defined by an income level that in most countries would make them prosperous is a nation that has all but forgotten the true meaning of poverty. A nation in which obesity is largely a problem of the poor (and anorexia of the upper-middle class) does not understand the word 'hunger.'" www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110011097 He's absolutely right. And that's also why I am so offended by John Edwards' campaign for president. His "two Americas" schtick is ridiculous. Real poverty in, say, Juarez Mexico, is not the same as poverty defined by American bureaucrats. Know what ticks me off about poverty in America? MOST of it in no way compares to poverty in the rest of the world. Except for cases of real American poverty, most of the “poor” in America are well-off or at least comfortable compared to the world’s poor.

The vast majority of American “poor” have food; TV (cable or satt); phones; computer; clothes; shelter; jobs or government checks (or both); working indoor toilets and plumbing; electricity; medical care; and so on. Much of the world’s poor are fortunate if they have food OR shelter OR clothes OR occasional medical care OR etc.

As Bret Stephens wrote (in an article speaking of a much larger context):

“A nation in which the poor are defined by an income level that in most countries would make them prosperous is a nation that has all but forgotten the true meaning of poverty. A nation in which obesity is largely a problem of the poor (and anorexia of the upper-middle class) does not understand the word ‘hunger.’”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110011097

He’s absolutely right.

And that’s also why I am so offended by John Edwards’ campaign for president. His “two Americas” schtick is ridiculous. Real poverty in, say, Juarez Mexico, is not the same as poverty defined by American bureaucrats.

]]>