Actually, I live in an area where the median income is about $24,000/year, and I'm one of three people I know personally with a TV smaller than 32 inches.

The people I know are not rich.

And I drive a vehicle worth almost $10k, and it is one of the cheaper vehicles among my friends.

The truth is, the middle class may be "suffering" in some parts of the country, but it is likely because of their excess, NOT Bush's policies.

Gideon, I feel for ya buddy but $24k is not middle class. The median household income in the US is over $45k now.

When I checked the area, they said the median income for the area is $24k. You have to remember the high percentage of jobs in this area at WalMart, quick stops, etc. Even the nursing home south of us only pays $8/hour for CNA's


Actually, it says the median household income is $27 on that article, TW. It says the median FAMILY income is $38 (since most married families are 2 income, that would seem about right). It further puts the per capita income at $13, but because there are a lot of retirees, that seems normal.


So I may have confused another figure for the $24k, but I was only $3k below the mark...lol!

Brad,

I realize $24K isn't middle class. My point was that people WELL below middle class are enjoying these luxuries, people that Col Gene insists are suffering.

To use a direct illustration, there's a young couple from this area who are currently out of work, who are complaining about their situation. They have two vehicle payments; one is $500/month, the other is $700/month. They have a $200/month payment on a trailer. They have a motorcycle with I don't know how much of a payment. Then you have to figure in credit cards, the oh-so-important big screen and stereo, and there you go. These people pay more for their TOYS than I pay for all of our bills put together. The wife is barely out of high school and has work experience only in fast food, the husband was a police officer, but decided it didn't suit him (after being a corrections officer and deciding it didn't suit him), but neither thinks their lifestyle is remotely excessive.

maybe but you are a bigger joke.

Colonel,

When you document the deaths in mass numbers from starvation in Philadelphia, I will believe you. Until then, you completely lack credibility, as people CAN and DO live on the numbers that you insist are "starvation wages" in all parts of the country.

TW,

I was going with the median household income (a different number, yes, I know...and I admittedly missed by $3k), but my point holds. I know a heck of a lot of people making $8 an hour who have 52 inch screen TV's, cable, and PS3's. Yes, they're in debt up to their eyeballs to get them, but that was a personal choice. Nobody twisted their arms.

Right. It is what it takes to live. Meaning, they're dead. SHOW ME THE BODIES!



If you assume the "best possible choices" to be brand new car, surround sound system, big screen TV, state of the art computer, etc, you're absolutely right.

People making $24K a year fall into two categories, Gene. Those who will never make more than that and those who eventually will. Those who will we don't need to worry about helping, they'll find their way out. Those who won't we really shouldn't help, as they make the choices that keep them in that position.

You're absolutely right about $24 k not being much money, Gene. No question about it. But people can and DO live off of it, regularly. Not comfortably, no, but they make it. In my experience, the discomfort is what propels them to make more.

When I have had rough times with work, I have been appalled at the number of people who felt the solution was to give us money or things. Honestly, I wanted a better JOB, not things or money.

And yet people aren't dying in the streets. How do you reconcile that?

If they have no food on the table, they're dying. Duh. Please show me a disporporionately high number of homeless, or people dying in the streets. SUPPORT your assertions, Col.

My premise was and is that you CAN live on $24,000 a year. My evidence: the millions of families that do it everyday. Yes, it is sucky, and yes it means foregoing a lot of things you want (or hocking yourself up to your eyeballs at the local rent to own, but it can be done). Your premise is that they cannot. Your evidence: caps and bold typeface.

Which is more compelling?

No, I would never accuse Gene of lying.

When he shows me the bodies, I will apologize.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Sunday, December 30, 2007 ok now either gene is lying or brad and gid is. No, I would never accuse Gene of lying.When he shows me the bodies, I will apologize.

THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT PEOPLE WITH INCOMES AT THAT LEVEL RECEIVE HELP. THAT DOES NOT MEAN KIDS DO NOT GO TO BED HUNGRY. WE KNOW MANY CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE MADICAL INSURANCE. There have been stories of seniors being unable to afford heat. Some have frozen to death. Some have been moved into shelters. There will be more of that this winter with heating oil prices up over $.85 per gallon over last year.

Compare these poor people to people like Cheney with his $1.7 Million dollar income last year. He got more of a tax cut then these poor families have to live on. There is something very wrong with that and yes there are stories about the children and elderly without food. Look at all the soup kitchens run by churches. I worked for a food bank in Florida and there were many times the demand was do high that our shelves were empty. I was president of a non profit corporation that provided low and very low income seniors with housing and helped low and very low income home owners fix their roofs and plumbing. We always had more people that needed help then we have resources to provide the help. We had a waiting list of 300 for the 72 low income apartments we had available. This was in a city were we had developments of multi million dollar homes and banks on every corner. The cars of choice were a BMW or Mercedes-Benz with a sprinkling of Rolls Royce’s. Do not tell me the rich can not afford a little moiré in taxes. The truth is the do not WANT to pay more because of pure GREED. Look up the meaning of GREED and you will see it fits what the wealthy and Bush have done!

My Bible's dictionary defines lust as an "inordinate desire or craving." Likewise, the word covet is "to inordinately desire unjust gain or another's property."[1] Webster defines lust: "1: sexual desire often to an intense or unrestrained degree; 2: an intense longing."[2] In my opinion, when searching Scripture on this topic, to lust and to covet are generally synonymous. The first well-known reference to coveting is found in the Ten Commandments: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20.17, NIV unless otherwise noted). Clearly, coveting encompasses more than sexual desire.



the real word you looking for gene is lust. and this is what you are doing. oh your doing supposedly to help others. but, what you are really doing is saying i am not as rich as brad so brad has to give up his property so that i can be as rich as him.


lots of people live off of 24,000 or less even in the areas where you lived. as i told you i can live off of a 1000 a month. perhaps not as well as you do but i don't really care. if i really wanted to be rich i could be by the end of next year.

lots of people live off of 24,000 or less even in the areas where you lived. as i told you i can live off of a 1000 a month. perhaps not as well as you do but i don't really care. if i really wanted to be rich i could be by the end of next year.

They exist not live. You and those like you are a SAD excuse for Americans. Let’s look at the definition of GREED, "Excessive desire for acquiring or having; desire for more then one needs” YES that is what the wealthy are who want to keep all their wealth-- GREEDY!!!!!