America’s Shame: 37 Million Fall Below Poverty Line In US

An open section to speak about anything on your mind from News, politics, Conspiracy Theories, and any random street or urban event.
User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

America’s Shame: 37 Million Fall Below Poverty Line In US

Unread postby 'X' » February 21st, 2006, 10:42 pm

**The good ole US of A huh?


37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty
By Paul Harris
The Observer

The flickering television in Candy Lumpkins’s trailer blared out The Bold and the Beautiful. It was a fantasy daytime soap vision of American life with little relevance to the reality of this impoverished corner of Kentucky.

The Lumpkins live at the definition of the back of beyond, in a hollow at the top of a valley at the end of a long and muddy dirt road. It is strewn with litter. Packs of stray dogs prowl around, barking at strangers. There is no telephone and since their pump broke two weeks ago Candy has collected water from nearby springs. Oblivious to it all, her five-year-old daughter Amy runs barefoot on a wooden porch frozen by a midwinter chill.

It is a vision of deep and abiding poverty. Yet the Lumpkins are not alone in their plight. They are just the negative side of the American equation. America does have vast, wealthy suburbs, huge shopping malls and a busy middle class, but it also has vast numbers of poor, struggling to make it in a low-wage economy with minimal government help.

A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit’s streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.

Under President George W Bush an extra 5.4 million have slipped below the poverty line. Yet they are not a story of the unemployed or the destitute. Most have jobs. Many have two. Amos Lumpkins has work and his children go to school. But the economy, stripped of worker benefits like healthcare, is having trouble providing good wages.

Even families with two working parents are often one slice of bad luck - a medical bill or factory closure - away from disaster. The minimum wage of $5.15 (£2.95) an hour has not risen since 1997 and, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest since 1956. The gap between the haves and the have-nots looms wider than ever. Faced with rising poverty rates, Bush’s trillion-dollar federal budget recently raised massive amounts of defence spending for the war in Iraq and slashed billions from welfare programmes.

For a brief moment last year in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina brought America’s poor into the spotlight. Poverty seemed on the government’s agenda. That spotlight has now been turned off. ‘I had hoped Katrina would have changed things more. It hasn’t,’ says Cynthia Duncan, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Oklahoma is in America’s heartland. Tulsa looks like picture-book Middle America. Yet there is hunger here. When it comes to the most malnourished poor in America, Oklahoma is ahead of any other state. It should be impossible to go hungry here. But it is not. Just ask those gathered at a food handout last week. They are a cross section of society: black, white, young couples, pensioners and the middle-aged. A few are out of work or retired, everyone else has jobs.

They are people like Freda Lee, 33, who has two jobs, as a marketer and a cashier. She has come to the nondescript Loaves and Fishes building - flanked ironically by a Burger King and a McDonald’s - to collect food for herself and three sons. ‘America is meant to be free. What’s free?’ she laughs. ‘All we can do is pay off the basics.’

Or they are people like Tammy Reinbold, 37. She works part-time and her husband works full-time. They have two children yet rely on the food handouts. ‘The church is all we have to fall back on,’ she says. She is right. When government help is being cut and wages are insufficient, churches often fill the gap. The needy gather to receive food boxes. They listen to a preacher for half an hour on the literal truth of the Bible. Then he asks them if they want to be born again. Three women put up their hands.

But why are some Tulsans hungry?

Many believe it is the changing face of the US economy. Tulsa has been devastated by job losses. Big-name firms like WorldCom, Williams Energy and CitGo have closed or moved, costing the city about 24,000 jobs. Now Wal-Mart embodies the new American job market: low wages, few benefits.

Well-paid work only goes to the university-educated. Many others who just complete high school face a bleak future. In Texas more than a third of students entering public high schools now drop out. These people are entering the fragile world of the working poor, where each day is a mere step away from tragedy. Some of those tragedies in Tulsa end up in the care of Steve Whitaker, a pastor who runs a homeless mission in the shadow of a freeway overpass.

Each day the homeless and the drug addicted gather here, looking for a bed for the night. Some also want a fresh chance. They are men like Mark Schloss whose disaster was being left by his first wife. The former Wal-Mart manager entered a world of drug addiction and alcoholism until he wound up with Whitaker. Now he is back on track, sporting a silver ring that says Faith, Hope, Love. ‘Without this place I would be in prison or dead,’ he says. But Whitaker equates saving lives with saving souls. Those entering the mission’s rehabilitation programme are drilled in Bible studies and Christianity. At 6ft 5in and with a black belt in karate, Whitaker’s Christianity is muscular both literally and figuratively. ‘People need God in their lives,’ he says.

These are mean streets. Tulsa is a city divided like the country. Inside a building run by Whitaker’s staff in northern Tulsa a group of ‘latch-key kids’ are taking Bible classes after school while they wait for parents to pick them up. One of them is Taylor Finley, aged nine. Wearing a T-shirt with an American flag on the front, she dreams of travel. ‘I want to have fun in a new place, a new country,’ she says. Taylor wants to see the world outside Oklahoma. But at the moment she cannot even see her own neighbourhood. The centre in which she waits for mom was built without windows on its ground floor. It was the only way to keep out bullets from the gangs outside.

During the 2004 election the only politician to address poverty directly was John Edwards, whose campaign theme was ‘Two Americas’. He was derided by Republicans for doing down the country and - after John Kerry picked him as his Democratic running mate - the rhetoric softened in the heat of the campaign.

But, in fact, Edwards was right. While 45.8 million Americans lack any health insurance, the top 20 per cent of earners take over half the national income. At the same time the bottom 20 per cent took home just 3.4 per cent. Whitaker put the figures into simple English. ‘The poor have got poorer and the rich have got richer,’ he said.

Dealing with poverty is not a viable political issue in America. It jars with a cultural sense that the poor bring things upon themselves and that every American is born with the same chances in life. It also runs counter to the strong anti-government current in modern American politics. Yet the problem will not disappear. ‘There is a real sense of impending crisis, but political leaders have little motivation to address this growing divide,’ Cynthia Duncan says.

There is little doubt which side of America’s divide the hills of east Kentucky fall on. Driving through the wooded Appalachian valleys is a lesson in poverty. The mountains have never been rich. Times now are as tough as they have ever been. Trailer homes are the norm. Every so often a lofty mansion looms into view, a sign of prosperity linked to the coal mines or the logging firms that are the only industries in the region. Everyone else lives on the margins, grabbing work where they can. The biggest cash crop is illicitly grown marijuana.

Save The Children works here. Though the charity is usually associated with earthquakes in Pakistan or famine in Africa, it runs an extensive programme in east Kentucky. It includes a novel scheme enlisting teams of ‘foster grandparents’ to tackle the shocking child illiteracy rates and thus eventually hit poverty itself.

The problem is acute. At Jone’s Fork school, a team of indomitable grannies arrive each day to read with the children. The scheme has two benefits: it helps the children struggle out of poverty and pays the pensioners a small wage. ‘This has been a lifesaver for me and I feel as if the children would just fall through the cracks without us,’ says Erma Owens. It has offered dramatic help to some. One group of children are doing so well in the scheme that their teacher, Loretta Shepherd, has postponed retirement in order to stand by them. ‘It renewed me to have these kids,’ she said.

Certainly Renae Sturgill sees the changes in her children. She too lives in deep poverty. Though she attends college and her husband has a job, the Sturgill trailer sits amid a clutter of abandoned cars. Money is scarce. But now her kids are in the reading scheme and she has seen how they have changed. Especially eight-year-old Zach. He’s hard to control at times, but he has come to love school. ‘Zach likes reading now. I know it’s going to be real important for him,’ Renae says. Zach is shy and won’t speak much about his achievements. But Genny Waddell, who co-ordinates family welfare at Jone’s Fork, is immensely proud. ‘Now Zach reads because he wants to. He really fought to get where he is,’ she says.

In America, to be poor is a stigma. In a country which celebrates individuality and the goal of giving everyone an equal opportunity to make it big, those in poverty are often blamed for their own situation. Experience on the ground does little to bear that out. When people are working two jobs at a time and still failing to earn enough to feed their families, it seems impossible to call them lazy or selfish. There seems to be a failure in the system, not the poor themselves.

It is an impression backed up by many of those mired in poverty in Oklahoma and Kentucky. Few asked for handouts. Many asked for decent wages. ‘It is unfair. I am working all the time and so what have I done wrong?’ says Freda Lee. But the economy does not seem to be allowing people to make a decent living. It condemns the poor to stay put, fighting against seemingly impossible odds or to pull up sticks and try somewhere else.

In Tulsa, Tammy Reinbold and her family are moving to Texas as soon as they save the money for enough petrol. It could take several months. ‘I’ve been in Tulsa 12 years and I just gotta try somewhere else,’ she says.

Stats to ponder:

An America divided

· There are 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. That figure has increased by five million since President George W. Bush came to power.· The United States has 269 billionaires, the highest number in the world.

· Almost a quarter of all black Americans live below the poverty line; 22 per cent of Hispanics fall below it. But for whites the figure is just 8.6 per cent :? .

· There are 46 million Americans without health insurance.

· There are 82,000 homeless people in Los Angeles alone.

· In 2004 the poorest community in America was Pine Ridge Indian reservation. Unemployment is over 80 per cent, 69 per cent of people live in poverty and male life expectancy is 57 years. In the Western hemisphere only Haiti has a lower number.

· The richest town in America is Rancho Santa Fe in California. Average incomes are more than $100,000 a year; the average house price is $1.7m.

Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

User avatar
useless_person
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 713
Joined: January 18th, 2006, 1:50 pm

Unread postby useless_person » February 26th, 2006, 8:17 pm

Meaning that......


They have no shelter. No food. No clothes. No money. No life.

There is not another way to describe the meaning of this..

No one, and i mean NO ONE is going to help them. Thats how the world cares about the people it created, its like a dog having a cat as a child, its not going to give a damn if it runs out of its so called '9 lives', and will have to deal with no one in return.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6509
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: America’s Shame: 37 Million Fall Below Poverty Line In U

Unread postby Sentenza » February 27th, 2006, 12:25 am

X wrote:
· There are 82,000 homeless people in Los Angeles alone.


Thats a lot!!

My city, with about the same population has ca. 6,000.

punamusta
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1387
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:55 pm
Country: Finland
If in the United States: Alabama
What city do you live in now?: see above
Location: Hellsinki, Finno-Ugria

Re: America’s Shame: 37 Million Fall Below Poverty Line In U

Unread postby punamusta » February 27th, 2006, 8:16 am

Sentenza wrote:
X wrote:
· There are 82,000 homeless people in Los Angeles alone.


Thats a lot!!

My city, with about the same population has ca. 6,000.


In my hometown (Helsinki, Finland) we have more than 6000 homeless here and Helsinki isn't even that big, only about 560,000 people live here. It seems that in every western country the poverty is increasing as the capitalism is getting stronger and markets are opening more and more. The people who don't have capita, can only sell themselves for a job. And while working hours are getting longer, the wages are getting lower and prices are getting higher. So no wonder more and more people are living in poverty.

User avatar
useless_person
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 713
Joined: January 18th, 2006, 1:50 pm

Unread postby useless_person » February 27th, 2006, 4:07 pm

In order for a large number of people to be in poverty at a certain country, someone must have made them become poor...


The country itself would not allow such a thing to happen to any of its people unless the people who run the country are doing it on perpose. A country without a government is not even a country, having a government type that effects the country in a way that turns the 'country' it is running into a poor and deserted place. No government running a country, or any government having particular order in some specific amount of populated land its operating on would NEVER make its people go broke.

A large chunk of land may be considered a country, usually noticed by the name and/or even having a flag is what makes it a 'country', but not having a government to hold the order within that specific chunk of land is going to have a large effect on the people that are living there.

First of all, countries with governemnts or any group of people that hold the law within that country or have the rights to do it, will have the power to operate it.

Poor countries that have a large amount of population in poverty is not because of a governemnt's poor job at running it, its about the kind of people running it.

Warlords can be a reason for trouble and poverty in the country he/she and his/her group and/or governemnt are running. Simply all because the warlord has either have a enormouse amount of greed and selfishness, or he/she is using his/her current power to get what he/she wants. It can be more power all the way to fame and wealth.

These warlords claim the country's governemnt type usually Military Dictatorships. This can come from having one person call him/her self the president or whatever and tell the people that work for him/her what to do and what he/she wants to get done, so they do it. He/she makes the big decisions and his/her workers brake those decisions up into catagories and let the lower class workers do the jobs.

If the people stand out, then he/she can use hunger as his/her weapon or just slaughter the group coming to protest against his way of life. This can all result to countries trying to attack and overrule the warlord that is causing all of the poverty.

37 Million is a huge number. Especially in the USA, i am not that suprised but am furious why this has to happen to so many people for no reason. The USA has the richest economy in the whole world, roughly making trillions annually, but still, i have seen the way it handles its people, and i am not that greatful that it has the dream wealth and system, and has to make more than 37 million people suffer.

The USA basiclly has almost 300 million people, roughly 295 million. Assuming that 12 point something trillion dollars GDP in 2005 isn't enough to get a plan started, now it jumps to a higher level, this is purely discusting and to my amazement, why doesn't any one wonder why most of the crimes happen in the housing project areas of cities in the USA....

Housing projects are made for people that cannot afford normal residences, so they can be put instead of a normal monthly rental of like 950 dollars for three bedroom apartment, they can be put in a similar one that has over 300 bucks off the normal price.

Housing projects isn't a risk of high crime rates because of poverty, they are because of race. Poverty doesnt cause people to buy guns and shoot others. If people in the housing projects are so poor and didnt have enough money to provide important needs such as food, then why do most of the youth living there wear a different pair of clothing everyday costing at about 1 grand total, and say that they dont have any money?

$100 Phat Farm shoes. $75 t-shirt. $125 hoody. $250 jacket. $45 socks. $50 baseball cap. $90 jeans. $25 boxers. $20 du rag/bandana. $300 chain. $140 watch. $70 gloves. $85 tax.

Thats poverty?

----------------------------------------------------------

Its because of race, not poverty. What races live in the housing projects?

----------------------------------------------------------

People living there are usually from different countries, and are usually rather not whites....

People from other countries have different beliefs and have different views and opinions towards others. This can turn a conversation into bloodshed and tears. Why do you think gangs are formed and are usually different races, such as some gang being mostly blacks or hispanics. This is formed for protection against other people that debate against your beliefs and way of life. This can bring crime into a neighbourhood. You know the rest....

Here is an outline of different races living in poverty and what their occupations are most common to be:

Whites usually work in factories.
Browns usually work in convinience stores.

I am not racist in any way so i am not going to start a war over people's different opinions, so if you have something bad to say, keep it to yourself, and if you have something good to say, then i would be glad to hear it.

Bad = Against
Good = With

Here is an outline of races representing roles in criminal movies:

Race: Role:

Whites - Mafia
Blacks - Street Gangs
Hispanics - Drug Cartels
Asians - Triads/Yakuza
Browns - Terrorists

This is an example of how society splits the word 'race' with two different meanings into one show, first is the color of the skin, and to be the first one to the gold....

Poverty CAN be caused by the country's government being lazy and not caring towards its public or just pure hate on different catagories. This can escalate riots and force to make movements/civil rights groups and all of this can result in physical casualties such as either the mental way of hurting someone physicly, which is nature calling to say that starvation is the key to winning over your opponents, which of course causes stress and anger plus making the system become aware and as the brain sends the signal to the heart and the cycle continues, the brain becomes in charge and makes the heart stop beating...

This also can result in another way of physical pain such as simple violence, and this is a rather sudden one to deal with.. This is why massacres and genocides are happening throughout every single step of the way to becoming older as time passes by and having violence being caused by starvation, so physical-mental awareness and phycial-action is what could trigger large amounts of bullets being sprayed over that hungry body you just didnt want to have.

Scenario:

There is a large crowd of people gathering around a food shipment sent for the public and to end the starvation(physical-mental) happening throughout the country. It is sent by a large non profit organization to help start feeding hungry settlers. The governemnt making poverty become into starvation has armed militia gathering to stop this large crowd of angry people, starving to death. As violence starts to escalate, a crowd of lets say, 4 people, jumps out and rips the bags carrying the foods. The militia acts back, so they start shooting with a heavy machine gun mounted on the top of the vehicle they came in and kill the 4 people and injure 2 others.

This is an example of mental-physical states of the body reacting into physcial-actions to help feed the mind out of defeating the body so they will not die of hunger.........

You guys can decide what is causing all of this and debate about it with yourselves.

But keep in mind that 37 million out of 295 million is too much for a country so massive and known as a leader plus carrying the good of itself outside and leaving the wealth become unknown on the inside, thus getting the dosage of poor to the people, getting rid of the people standing in the way of the oil, while poverty rises every day and a suprising 37 million people become apart of it.

What a world..........

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Unread postby 'X' » February 28th, 2006, 10:57 am

Lies, Damn Lies and Poverty Statistics
How an archaic measurement keeps millions of poor Americans from being counted
By Christopher Moraff


Standing before the House rostrum on the night of January 31, President George W. Bush beamed as he recounted the state of the country’s economic health.

“Our economy is healthy,” the president declared during his State of the Union address. “Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.”

What shape Bush has in mind is clear. While the administrators of the president’s economic policies champion 11 consecutive quarters of GDP growth, Bush-mandated tax cuts ensure that the government will continue to make less while the rich and large corporations eagerly fill their coffers. In 2005, federal revenues were just 17.5 percent of GDP, 1 percent less than the previous 50-year average. By contrast, the Feb. 12, 2005 Economist reported that in 2004, after-tax corporate profits reached their highest level as a proportion of GDP in 75 years.

In the meantime, everyday Americans are spending more than they make. For the second straight year, personal savings have been in the red, a phenomenon that has only happened once before, at the height of the Great Depression. Research conducted by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the indebtedness of U.S. households has risen nearly 36 percent over the last four years. As a result, the gulf between the “haves” and “have nots” is reaching crisis proportions.

Compounding the crisis is an archaic method for determining America’s poverty rate, which is then used to formulate the funding of programs that alleviate poverty. When President Bush sat down with his advisors to draft his FY 2007 budget, it’s debatable whether he took the time to examine the national poverty statistics provided each year by the Census Bureaus. What’s not debatable is that the Census Bureau’s methodology is woefully inadequate.

The current method for measuring poverty in the United States was developed in 1963 by a young statistician for the Social Security Administration named Mollie Orshansky. Using data from a 1955 Department of Agriculture survey, Orshansky developed a set of thresholds that set a poverty line at three times the annual cost of feeding a family of three or more under Agriculture’s “low-cost budget.” She developed the thresholds purely for her own research and said at the time that her data’s limitations would yield a “conservative underestimate” of poverty.

At that, Orshansky’s work might well have passed into history. But on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson uttered the famous words: “This Administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” It was a war Johnson intended to win, but missing was an official yardstick for gauging the problem and its ultimate resolve.

Not just any measure would do. Rather, the administration required a threshold that was sufficiently conservative to render eradication of poverty attainable—winning the war by moving up the finish line. Orshansky’s model fit the bill. But first, the Office of Economic Opportunity substituted the Agriculture Department’s “economy food plan,” which was still another 25 percent lower than the “low cost budget” originally chosen by Orshansky. Almost immediately, the new thresholds had an effect, and by 1968, the nation’s official poverty rate had dropped by more than 10 million.

Forty years later, with the War on Poverty no closer to being won, the Census still relies on the Orshansky Thresholds to calculate each year how many Americans live in poverty. That number then determines the nature and distribution of an array of federal policies and programs aimed at addressing the issue.

As critics have pointed out for decades, limitations of the Orshansky formula are manifold. For one, food doesn’t account for one-third of a family’s budget today, making it an unrealistic cost-of-living measure. The model also fails to take into account housing, transportation or health care—which together can amount to more than triple the average cost of food. Add in regional variations, childcare costs and the growth of single-parent families, and it’s fair to say that the Census Bureau is systematically undercounting the number of poor Americans.

Census data released this past August suggests that the number of Americans in poverty grew slightly in 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available) to 12.7 percent from the 12.5 percent recorded the previous year, representing about 37 million Americans. Since 2000, the number of people living in official poverty has increased by 5.4 million. But according to experts, that number vastly underestimates the real total. Duke University sociology professor David Brady puts it this way: “Each August we Americans tell ourselves a lie. The entire episode is profoundly dishonest.”

Brady says that based on his calculations the real number is closer to 18 percent—or 48 million Americans currently unable to afford the most basic necessities. Less conservative estimates have put the numbers of poor at 25 percent, or more than 70 million Americans.

Robert T. Michael, a renowned public policy scholar at the University of Chicago, explains the shortcomings: Orshansky “set a target level of income for a family of four at $3100 in 1963 based on evidence that she put together that basically was using 1955 data. That exact same number—augmented only by cost of living—is the official measurement of poverty today. If they’d done that at the time of Abraham Lincoln, you know, set a rate something like 100 years before, then we’d have a really low level of poverty today.”

What this means in real numbers is that the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2004 was an annual income of $19,307. It was $15,067 for a family of three; $12,334 for a family of two; and $9,645 for individuals. “It’s really egregiously in error,” Michael says.

In 1992, at the prompting of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences formed a panel to examine the poverty thresholds. Michael was asked to chair the panel.

After three years of work, in 1995 the panel released its report, “Measuring Poverty: A New Approach,” which proposed a number of reforms, notably a change to a measure adjusted regionally that takes into account variations in the cost of housing. But nobody in the federal government seemed ready to budge.

“We’ve gotten some movement and a lot of attention,” Michael explains, “but it hasn’t changed anything because politicians are politicians.” He blames the interests of the states—which have become financially dependent on the status quo—and an unwillingness of any administration to accept such a drastic rise of poverty on their watch.

“If they wanted to change it, it would be pretty easy to do,” agrees Brady. “The real reason it hasn’t been changed is because of politics.”

User avatar
WIP
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 778
Joined: July 17th, 2003, 10:15 pm
Location: State Hoppin

Unread postby WIP » March 2nd, 2006, 2:11 am

Newsflash!!! america has no or never had shame for anything.

punamusta
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1387
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:55 pm
Country: Finland
If in the United States: Alabama
What city do you live in now?: see above
Location: Hellsinki, Finno-Ugria

Unread postby punamusta » March 2nd, 2006, 4:10 pm

WIP wrote:Newsflash!!! america has no or never had shame for anything.


True.

"I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are." - George Bush

User avatar
useless_person
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 713
Joined: January 18th, 2006, 1:50 pm

Unread postby useless_person » March 3rd, 2006, 6:57 pm

WIP wrote:Newsflash!!! america has no or never had shame for anything.


Thats why the whole world is laughing at them behind the scenes.

You should.. You really should....

blackmanofhonor
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1690
Joined: December 25th, 2004, 10:40 am
Location: Mil town,WIS

Unread postby blackmanofhonor » March 6th, 2006, 1:26 pm

If people in the housing projects are so poor and didnt have enough money to provide important needs such as food, then why do most of the youth living there wear a different pair of clothing everyday costing at about 1 grand total, and say that they dont have any money?

$100 Phat Farm shoes. $75 t-shirt. $125 hoody. $250 jacket. $45 socks. $50 baseball cap. $90 jeans. $25 boxers. $20 du rag/bandana. $300 chain. $140 watch. $70 gloves. $85 tax.



Most people in the projects do not and can not afford to wear such things.The only people who do are drug dealers.Who are blocked from employment due to thier race,and thus,make money illegally.

User avatar
Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread postby Old Shatterhand » March 6th, 2006, 9:51 pm

http://news.com.com/House+approves+elec ... 71898.html

The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Thursday a sweeping set of rules aimed at forcing states to issue all adults federally approved electronic ID cards, including driver's licenses.

Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government. The bill was approved by a 261-161 vote.

The measure, called the Real ID Act, says that driver's licenses and other ID cards must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements" that could include a magnetic strip or RFID tag. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with drafting the details of the regulation.

User avatar
useless_person
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 713
Joined: January 18th, 2006, 1:50 pm

Unread postby useless_person » March 7th, 2006, 5:03 pm

blackmanofhonor wrote:
If people in the housing projects are so poor and didnt have enough money to provide important needs such as food, then why do most of the youth living there wear a different pair of clothing everyday costing at about 1 grand total, and say that they dont have any money?

$100 Phat Farm shoes. $75 t-shirt. $125 hoody. $250 jacket. $45 socks. $50 baseball cap. $90 jeans. $25 boxers. $20 du rag/bandana. $300 chain. $140 watch. $70 gloves. $85 tax.



Most people in the projects do not and can not afford to wear such things.The only people who do are drug dealers.Who are blocked from employment due to thier race,and thus,make money illegally.


I guess that is true besides from the kids wearing all of that, the teenagers, the drug dealers, and whatever.

What are you talking about? Cant afford?

Why do people at every housing project I go wear what I described, and especially the youth, and blab about how rich they are?

Nice touch. All they need is some nice wheels and a loaded glock 12 and they're ready to roll. 8)

MillieEwing
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 7:19 pm
Country: Canada
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Los Angeles

Re: America’s Shame: 37 Million Fall Below Poverty Line In U

Unread postby MillieEwing » December 23rd, 2014, 7:23 pm

More Americans are losing their hope to be buoyant from the dearth they experience. According to the latest report, Americans who lived below poverty line increased to its highest number. That means more Americans will need payday loans just to get by.


Return to “Open Section for Other Random Topics & Controverisal issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests