The rich have money -- and passion

[gmarie21]

The fundamental cause of poverty in America is the welfare system. It is abetted by those who tell the poor the game is rigged and they can’t win – instead of telling them to stay in school, work hard, save and invest.

Oh my, there is so much stereotyping and ignorance with this statement that I’m just . Majority of those on the welfare system don’t abuse the system and use it temporarily to help them out of poverty. How about those college students who use the welfare system for financial aide? Or those who get a FHA or VA loan to buy a house (also through the welfare system)? Yes, there are those who abuse the system, but there are affluent people who abuse the tax system. No matter where there is a “system” you will always find someone to abuse that “system” no matter what education or wealth level. That is what sinful people do, they use and abuse their free will to various degrees.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course, you’re forgetting all the greed that comes before those lousy roads (been in Illinios lately, our toll money and tax money is not doing a very good job of having pot-hole free roads) and that soon to be emptied Medicare system.

Perhaps you need to reform your state government. There is plenty of money, but there is also plenty of graft.

You see, money tends to cause people to not only increase their bank account but also their greed. As always, there are exceptions to this, but they are not the majority.

And you know this, how?

Can you give us some statistics from a reputable site?

I have a question for you…anyone who makes a negative statement about wealth is, seen by you, an envious person?

This thread is about how people can succeed. It quickly degenerated into a hate-fest against the “rich” – and no one has backed up any of the many allegation made against those who are more affluent than themselves.

Have you thought that some of us aren’t envious, but just are observant of the realities of some of the affluent?

If that were the case, you’d have evidence. You’d have statistics.

YOu are quick to stereotype the poor, but yet assume that those who stereotype the rich are envious.

When did I stereotype the poor?

I can show statistics on crime, drug abuse, dropping out of school, and so on and demonstrate how they are associated with poverty.

Neither group should be stereotyped (which is why I have referred to those I know who are affluent). Maybe you should listen to Fr. Corapi, a man who had A WHOLE BUNCH OF AFFLUENCE in his past. His stories are enough to point that our arguements should not be focused on monitary wealth, but spiritual wealth.

I listen to Father Corapi – I never heard him say, “Tell children to drop out of school, have sex out of wedlock, take drugs, and don’t get jobs.” I never heard him say, “Tell children they can’t win – so why try?” I never heard him say, “It’s a sin to work hard and to save and invest.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh my, there is so much stereotyping and ignorance with this statement that I’m just . Majority of those on the welfare system don’t abuse the system and use it temporarily to help them out of poverty. How about those college students who use the welfare system for financial aide? Or those who get a FHA or VA loan to buy a house (also through the welfare system)?

I don’t understand you? Are you saying college loan, the FHA and VA loans are part of the welfare system?

Yes, there are those who abuse the system, but there are affluent people who abuse the tax system. No matter where there is a “system” you will always find someone to abuse that “system” no matter what education or wealth level. That is what sinful people do, they use and abuse their free will to various degrees.

The point is, the welfare system created a culture of welfare. In some segments of society, it has become a way of life. Visit Phillips County, Arkansas – the poorest of all 3015 counties in the US.

 

[gmarie21]

When did I stereotype the poor?

I can show statistics on crime, drug abuse, dropping out of school, and so on and demonstrate how they are associated with poverty.

I listen to Father Corapi – I never heard him say, “Tell children to drop out of school, have sex out of wedlock, take drugs, and don’t get jobs.” I never heard him say, “Tell children they can’t win – so why try?” I never heard him say, “It’s a sin to work hard and to save and invest.”

You stereotype all the poor by assuming the statistics are the life of every single person living below, at, or slightly above poverty level. I have not stereotyped the rich, I only stated that those who I know who are affluent are lacking a lot of things that aren’t measurable by statistics.

Fr. Corapi has said many a negative thing about the lifestyles of the affluent individuals he once associated with (as well as when he was affluent). His focus now is not on having the most money or telling others to get as much money as possible. He now focuses his teachings on yhat which is truly important, getting as many people to Heaven and teaching them the skills to get there and to help their family, friends and enemies get there too.

 

[gmarie21]

I don’t understand you? Are you saying college loan, the FHA and VA loans are part of the welfare system?

Yes, they are all a part of the whole welfare system in the United States

 

[gmarie21]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_%28financial_aid%29

Welfare in the United States
Main article: Federal assistance in the United States
See also: Social Security (United States)
Welfare services in the United States have traditionally been more limited than those in European nations. As one author writes, “compared with most other rich capitalist societies, the American welfare state is more market-conforming.”[4]

Welfare assistance of various kinds is provided in the United States partly by the federal government and partly by state governments. Federal welfare and public assistance spending, which can reach to over 400 billion dollars annually,[5] is provided by federal government agencies, such as the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Health and Human Services, through special programs to recipients.

In the United States, personal welfare is normally given to households with children, often headed by single mothers. Since the landmark federal welfare reform act in 1996 (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), individual recipients are limited to a lifetime maximum of five years cumulative for receiving federal welfare of all types.[6] Before 1997, United States personal welfare for households with children was first named Aid to Dependent Children, which was later called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).[7]. It was administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. In 1996-97 as part of welfare reform, AFDC was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which included more limits on the amount of time an individual or family can receive welfare.[8] Since 1996, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has largely replaced AFDC as the primary anti-poverty program in the United States[9].

While not termed “welfare” in the USA, there are a variety of other personal transfer payments which are financial assistance programs; examples of such transfer payments are unemployment compensation (which, unlike welfare, is not means-tested and is prepaid by employees before job loss) and tobacco taxes, part of which are disbursed for hospital care for the needy (as well as the general public).

With regard to personal welfare for individuals without children, most U.S. states had been providing welfare or assistance benefits to single adults and childless married couples since the Great Depression, but the number of states doing so declined steeply during the 1990s, and many of the states that still provide such benefits use methods other than cash payments to render the assistance. For example, many California counties currently provide only vouchers. At present, only a few states — New Jersey, Utah and Minnesota among them — still provide cash benefits to poverty-stricken adults who do not have child dependents. These programs were often known officially by such names as Home Relief, General Assistance, or General Relief.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You stereotype all the poor by assuming the statistics are the life of every single person living below, at, or slightly above poverty level. I have not stereotyped the rich, I only stated that those who I know who are affluent are lacking a lot of things that aren’t measurable by statistics.

And if you replaced “affluent” with “Black” or “Jew” in your statement, would you not see that was bigotry?

Why are you so angry? The theme of this thread is that people can rise out of poverty if we educate them and inculcate in them some basic values – like hard work, saving and investing.

What is it about that proposition that makes you angry?

Fr. Corapi has said many a negative thing about the lifestyles of the affluent individuals he once associated with (as well as when he was affluent). His focus now is not on having the most money or telling others to get as much money as possible. He now focuses his teachings on yhat which is truly important, getting as many people to Heaven and teaching them the skills to get there and to help their family, friends and enemies get there too.

Father Corapi has not seen fit to join this thread. And I don’t think he has deputized anyone to speak for him here.

 

[Vaclav]

Perhaps you could offer some evidence it is oppressing people.

The conflict diamond trade.

The fundamental cause of poverty in America is the welfare system. It is abetted by those who tell the poor the game is rigged and they can’t win – instead of telling them to stay in school, work hard, save and invest.

We don’t even have a real welfare system in America, how can what you say be true? We removed AFDC and replaced it with TANF over a decade ago. Getting on disability is extremely difficult and generally requires a lawyer (it is designed to be difficult and somewhat humiliating). Even labeling the American system as a “welfare system” is being overly generous in its current form. On TANF one has to work no later than 24 months after receiving benefits.

Calling that the “fundamental cause of poverty” is really shocking.

This thread is about how people can succeed.

No. It is about one view of how people can succeed. It conveniently overlooks many obstacles that people face everyday. Yes, hard work, education, and savings are great when that can be accomplished.

Yet, about the issues you have not touched upon?

The rising costs of attending university? The difficulties students are having with repaying student loans? The fact that the really good jobs that paid well and required a lot of hard work in the manufacturing indutries are mostly gone? The fact that service sector jobs generally pay terribly and offer relatively poor benefits? The fact that many Americans are in debt, sometimes massive debt to be where they are at?

That doesn’t even touch on issues of labor rights and other points raised in Catholic Social Teachings.

Have you considered that some of these young people have seen adults who worked hard and who still ended up in poverty? Maybe they’ve seen a Vietnam Vet who was seriously wounded and ended up mentally ill and turned out by the folks who are “for less government” and cheered when many of the mental health facilities were closed in the 80’s and 90’s?

Presenting this case with a few slogans and a “hooray western capitalism” oversimplistic attitude is completely unfair to the issues that surround poverty.

 

[Vaclav]

And if you replaced “affluent” with “Black” or “Jew” in your statement, would you not see that was bigotry?

Because one can choose to do act how they wish with their money. Race is a characteristic one is born into.

Why are you so angry? The theme of this thread is that people can rise out of poverty if we educate them and inculcate in them some basic values – like hard work, saving and investing.

What is it about that proposition that makes you angry?

You are building a strawman out of gmarie’s words.

This was the language that Maggie Thatcher used as well. All she wished to do was instill basic values like “hard work, saving and investing” and putting away a little for a rainy day. Then she would proceed into some drivel about her father’s shop.

Yet, you don’t see how patronising you are with that attitude towards the poor, do you?

 

[mary_bobo]

Take a walk on the bad side of the tracks and you’ll see how naive you are. (Your country has a habit of sweeping its poor under the carpet) This is how I know you have never experienced poverty; someone who has been truly destitute would never deny the existence of crushing poverty.

BTW I wouldn’t hold up your Medicare system as proof of success.

I must agree with the Medicare part. It is quickly running out of the ability to fulfill it’s promises and not a single politician wants to touch it with a ten foot pole. Same with Social Security. And sweeping the poor under the carpet? I don’t think you know what you are talking about. The largest percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The conflict diamond trade.

How does that prove anything?

First of all, is it capitalism? Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production in a competitive system.

Secondly, if it was capitalism, how would a single example prove anything?

We don’t even have a real welfare system in America, how can what you say be true?

We have enough of one to have the effects Saint Paul told us about. We have broken up poor families, made welfare a way of life, and failed to educate the children of the poor.

We removed AFDC and replaced it with TANF over a decade ago. Getting on disability is extremely difficult and generally requires a lawyer (it is designed to be difficult and somewhat humiliating). Even labeling the American system as a “welfare system” is being overly generous in its current form. On TANF one has to work no later than 24 months after receiving benefits

Calling that the “fundamental cause of poverty” is really shocking.
Why do you use phrases like that? Can’t this be debated without all the emotional baggage?

No. It is about one view of how people can succeed.

When people are succeeding economically, their stragtegy is more than just a “view.” It is reality.

It conveniently overlooks many obstacles that people face everyday. Yes, hard work, education, and savings are great when that can be accomplished.

The greatest obstacle is telling people they can’t succeed. If people grow up believing they can’t succeed, they won’t succeed – no matter how many opportunities they have.

Yet, about the issues you have not touched upon?

The rising costs of attending university? The difficulties students are having with repaying student loans?

Did you read the cites? None of the people in the case studies had success handed to them on a platter. Success is not about living in a world where there are no difficulties, it is about overcoming difficulties.

The fact that the really good jobs that paid well and required a lot of hard work in the manufacturing indutries are mostly gone? The fact that service sector jobs generally pay terribly and offer relatively poor benefits?

According to the Census Bureau, per capita income in the United States rose from $29,469 in 2000 to $34,586 in 2006 – despite a recession and the calamity of 9/11.

At the same time, unemployment is below 5% – which is usually considered “full employment.”

The fact that many Americans are in debt, sometimes massive debt to be where they are at?

Note that the strategy is to save and invest, not to borrow and spend.

That doesn’t even touch on issues of labor rights and other points raised in Catholic Social Teachings.

How does getting an education, working, saving and investing affect those issues?

If people didn’t get an education, didn’t get jobs, didn’t work hard, didn’t constantly upgrade their skills, didn’t seek promotion, didn’t save and invest, would this somehow improve rights and other points raised in Catholic Social Teachings?

Have you considered that some of these young people have seen adults who worked hard and who still ended up in poverty?

Of course – some people will fail. But that doesn’t mean we raise children not to try, and it doesn’t mean we should fail to equip them for success.

Maybe they’ve seen a Vietnam Vet who was seriously wounded and ended up mentally ill and turned out by the folks who are “for less government” and cheered when many of the mental health facilities were closed in the 80’s and 90’s?

What in the world does “for less government” got to do with this discussion?

And since I happen to be a Vietnam Vet who was seriously wounded I think I know a little about our problems.

Presenting this case with a few slogans and a “hooray western capitalism” oversimplistic attitude is completely unfair to the issues that surround poverty.

Why all the emotion? What is it that stirs such anger when we discuss economics? Particularly when you don’t even address the basic question in this thread?

 

[mary_bobo]

Why should Catholics,or anyone who has meditated upon the beatitudes,or observed how God prefers the poor,weak,and the lowest among us entertain the thought that to be affluent is really a good thing? Why should we even be so ambitious to acquire wealth and goods,when it so easily leads to
pride,self-satisfaction,self-justification,mistaken priorities,hard-heartedness,and a lessened dependence upon God ? What man exalts is an abomination in the eyes of God,as it says
somewhere in the Old Testament. Many of the wealthy men we are tempted to admire and envy turn out,on closer inspection,to be like walking abominations. They are small men who have propped themselves up on a mountain of money,goods,reputation. If you were to sever,in your mind’s eye,these men from their money,goods and reputation,what would you be left with to admire ? You’d be left with weak,petty,bitter,cursing,rotten,self-spoiled brats with immature attachments. Wealth is a dubious thing to have. It easily becomes more of a curse, in God’s eyes, to the person who has it,even if he thinks he is happy. Few people can have wealth without it having a corrosive effect on the soul or a hardening effect on the heart.

How judgmental, particularly since you do not know all of these people you are condemning.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because one can choose to do act how they wish with their money. Race is a characteristic one is born into.

So it’s okay to be bigoted toward successful people with no evidence?

You are building a strawman out of gmarie’s words.

A strawman is to advance an argument as if it were the other person’s argument, and attack it. Sensing anger in someone is not “building a strawman.”

This was the language that Maggie Thatcher used as well. All she wished to do was instill basic values like “hard work, saving and investing” and putting away a little for a rainy day. Then she would proceed into some drivel about her father’s shop.

So you project your dislike for her on all economic discussions?

Yet, you don’t see how patronising you are with that attitude towards the poor, do you?

Actually, the ones who patronize the poor are the ones who tell them they can’t make it.

 

[levi86]

Do you think you’re the only person who sees or works with the poor?

Certainly not, however I’m becoming more and more confident that you don’t.

More of the “I hate America” syndrome.

Not at all; but as the most powerful nation on earth you must be willing to accept a healthy degree of scrutiny, that’s the price of success I’m afraid.

Do we have poverty in America? Yes. But we also have the cure – which is available to all.

Capitalism has been around for 500 years, when is this “cure” going to start having a noticeable effect? (not just within the US but globally). From my perspective, and from that of much of the developing world, it would appear that capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you have some statistics to show otherwise I would be more than happy to look at them (and please no neo-con sites)

God bless.

 

[Vaclav]

How does that prove anything?

First of all, is it capitalism? Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production in a competitive system.

Secondly, if it was capitalism, how would a single example prove anything?

It is very convenient to define capitalism in a theoretical framework so as to only include examples that do not include oppressive instances. In answer to your second question you only asked for one example.

We have enough of one to have the effects Saint Paul told us about. We have broken up poor families, made welfare a way of life, and failed to educate the children of the poor.

Saint Paul did not discuss welfare economics that only came to existence in the mid 20th century.

A belated attempt to undo some of the damage we have caused…

In your opinion, and that of libertarian and liassez-faire capitalists.

When people are succeeding economically, their stragtegy is more than just a “view.” It is reality.

That depends how you define “success.” You have defined it as putting one’s money towards real estate (home onwership) or other accumalitive fixed assets. Also, it depends on your opinion of “people” and how many are actually achieving that success.

The greatest obstacle is telling people they can’t succeed. If people grow up believing they can’t succeed, they won’t succeed – no matter how many opportunities they have.

Or, if you are a realist, it depends on the actual availability of opportunities.

Did you read the cites? None of the people in the case studies had success handed to them on a platter. Success is not about living in a world where there are no difficulties, it is about overcoming difficulties.

So? What is that supposed to mean? That those who don’t succeed aren’t capable or “don’t believe they are capable” of overcoming difficulties?

According to the Census Bureau, per capita income in the United States rose from $29,469 in 2000 to $34,586 in 2006 – despite a recession and the calamity of 9/11.

And according to the Inflation Calculator at the Bureau of Labour Statistics $34,586 in 2006 has the purchasing power of $29, 542 in 2000. So congratulations, the people of America have earned an extra real increase of $73 in six years!

Now tell me how much hard work and investment paid off? I’m being sincere.

Why all the emotion? What is it that stirs such anger when we discuss economics? Particularly when you don’t even address the basic question in this thread?

Because you use the catch phrases and strawmen of people like Maggie Thatcher, who certainly did not believe in Catholic Social Teaching. You also tend to discuss less about societal importance and much more about individualism.

 

[Vaclav]

So it’s okay to be bigoted toward successful people with no evidence?

Did I say that? No. You are implying that gmarie is making a near-racist argument. She was not. Class exists, to claim otherwise is simply false.

A strawman is to advance an argument as if it were the other person’s argument, and attack it. Sensing anger in someone is not “building a strawman.”

That is precisely what you did.

So you project your dislike for her on all economic discussions?

On economic discussions where it is clear that someone is using her tactics of debate.

Actually, the ones who patronize the poor are the ones who tell them they can’t make it.

No. Take a look at your argument again. It is extremely patronising to the poor. It is almost as if they are children.

 

[gmarie21]

And if you replaced “affluent” with “Black” or “Jew” in your statement, would you not see that was bigotry?

Why are you so angry? The theme of this thread is that people can rise out of poverty if we educate them and inculcate in them some basic values – like hard work, saving and investing.

What is it about that proposition that makes you angry?

Excuse me, but stating that someone I know in a certain financial position lacks a certain value is a statement of fact and you can’t prove to me that I am a bigot because of such statement. Unless we know the same affluent people, then you have no idea what you’re talking since you do not know who I am talking about.

Why you keep on insisting I’m angry, I have know idea why. Maybe you’re referring to my being angry at the wrong assumption you made about the “welfare” system within the United States. You’re ignorance, and those who throw the same ignorant statement out there when discussing the “poor” people makes me mad. I am not going to assume that you don’t work with the poor, but I can speak for myself when I say that I have worked with the homeless directly for many years, have lived among the poor in crime ridden neighborhoods, and have taught and worked with students from the worst neighborhoods in Chicago (safety and education wise). The way you paint such an “easy” solution to such complex problems causes me to believe that you really don’t know all the obstacles that one faces to get out of poverty. I don’t agree with hand-outs from the government and believe that education is 100% important, however, even the best education in the poorer areas can not always guarantee that students will be successful when outside of their area of comfort. I wish it would, but for one to work for change of a situation one must be able to see the situation for its reality.

As for getting ahead in life, you are assuming the best of factors. From a personal experience, my mom and step-dad were ahead of the game with savings for retirement. Then, my step-dad lost his eyesight so he no longer could provide and went on disability. Then a few years later he needed a kidney transplant. Guess what?, all that savings went out the window because the dr. and hospital and the lifetime of anti-rejection medication bills need to be paid. Now, they’re living on his disability check and my mom’s income (she has a very profitable daycare, but you wouldn’t think so at the end of the month when there is no money left after paying the bills). You see, life happens sometimes and all the best planning in the world is no guarantee for success or affluence beyond the basics. My mom owns a home, which is great, but that’s the only investment she now has and she’s struggling to keep that.

So, I am not angry at the rich. Like I stated previously, good for them. But for someone to assume that those of us who aren’t as well-off are ill-educated and don’t know a thing about savings and investing is well, extremely naive and ignorant.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Certainly not, however I’m becoming more and more confident that you don’t.

I’m sure you didn’t mean that to be as offensive as it sounds.

Not at all; but as the most powerful nation on earth you must be willing to accept a healthy degree of scrutiny, that’s the price of success I’m afraid.

And anyone can appoint himself judge and jury?

Capitalism has been around for 500 years, when is this “cure” going to start having a noticeable effect?

Go to the door of your room. You’ll find a switch there. Flip it and you’ll have light. Go into the kitchen and you’ll find a box with cold food and even ice – despite the fact that spring is well along. And the food will be food you didn’t plant and harvest yourself.

Go into the poorest neighborhoods – you’ll see televisions and air conditioners and automobiles. Canned foods. Refrigerators. Gas and electric stoves. Plumbing with hot and cold running water. tubs, showers and toilets.

Look at the streets – they’re paved. People do not shoud “Gardee Loo” and empty their chamber pots out the windows any more.

It wasn’t Feudalism that produced all that!

(not just within the US but globally). From my perspective, and from that of much of the developing world, it would appear that capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you have some statistics to show otherwise I would be more than happy to look at them (and please no neo-con sites)

God bless.

I just posted statistics that show how per capita income has risen in the United States since 2000.

As for capitalism in the developing world, I have lived in Korea and Singapore. Both countries are prosperous – Singapore, for example, has 95% home ownership, better than the US.

However, there are many countries in the developing world that are not capitalist – and they are still mired in poverty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Excuse me, but stating that someone I know in a certain financial position lacks a certain value is a statement of fact and you can’t prove to me that I am a bigot because of such statement. Unless we know the same affluent people, then you have no idea what you’re talking since you do not know who I am talking about.

It may or may not be a statement of fact. But even if what you say about this person is true (and it could, you recognize not be true, but merely lack of charity on your part) it is merely anecdotal. You cannot generalize it to everyone who has more than yourself.

Why you keep on insisting I’m angry, I have know idea why. Maybe you’re referring to my being angry at the wrong assumption you made about the “welfare” system within the United States. You’re ignorance, and those who throw the same ignorant statement out there when discussing the “poor” people makes me mad.

Read what you just wrote - -starting with “Why you keep on insisting I’m angry” and ending with “makes me mad.”

Anyone who reads that would infer you are angry.

I am not going to assume that you don’t work with the poor,

Thank you.

but I can speak for myself when I say that I have worked with the homeless directly for many years, have lived among the poor in crime ridden neighborhoods, and have taught and worked with students from the worst neighborhoods in Chicago (safety and education wise). The way you paint such an “easy” solution to such complex problems causes me to believe that you really don’t know all the obstacles that one faces to get out of poverty.

Where did I say “easy?” I have several times mentioned **hard **work.

I said structurally, all we need to make people prosperous is in place – what is lacking is education and values. We must strive to educate and inculcate those values.

I don’t agree with hand-outs from the government and believe that education is 100% important,

Then on this point we are in agreement.

however, even the best education in the poorer areas can not always guarantee that students will be successful when outside of their area of comfort. I wish it would, but for one to work for change of a situation one must be able to see the situation for its reality.

There is no such thing as an absolute guarentee of anything – even Christ, Himself, did not guarentee we would all go to heaven.

But we can do better. And each person we lift out of poverty and make self-supporting gives us the Double Whammy – that person changes from a consumer of charity to a donator of charity.

As for getting ahead in life, you are assuming the best of factors. From a personal experience, my mom and step-dad were ahead of the game with savings for retirement. Then, my step-dad lost his eyesight so he no longer could provide and went on disability. Then a few years later he needed a kidney transplant. Guess what?, all that savings went out the window because the dr. and hospital and the lifetime of anti-rejection medication bills need to be paid. Now, they’re living on his disability check and my mom’s income (she has a very profitable daycare, but you wouldn’t think so at the end of the month when there is no money left after paying the bills). You see, life happens sometimes and all the best planning in the world is no guarantee for success or affluence beyond the basics. My mom owns a home, which is great, but that’s the only investment she now has and she’s struggling to keep that.

But how is this relevant? Would he have been better off with no savings? Would that have prevented his illnesses?

So, I am not angry at the rich.

Then why do you say something “makes you mad?”

Like I stated previously, good for them. But for someone to assume that those of us who aren’t as well-off are ill-educated and don’t know a thing about savings and investing is well, extremely naive and ignorant.

Now that’s a complete distortion of my position. When did I say you were ill-educated or didn’t know about savings and investing?

After all, we both agree that “education is 100% important,” do we not?

 

[Vaclav]

I just posted statistics that show how per capita income has risen in the United States since 2000.

Which resulted in a real increase of $73 between 2000 and 2006.

We may not agree, but let us at least agree to be fair in our presentation of economic statistics.