If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   15% of Americans live in poverty, which is why America needs more tax cuts for the wealthy   (theguardian.com) divider line 140
    More: Obvious, Americans, tax cuts, war on poverty, poverty  
•       •       •

1037 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2013 at 3:23 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-05 10:58:37 AM
Yes but how many have refrigerators?
 
2013-10-05 11:16:36 AM
But all those tax cuts for the rich will trickle done to the poor any day now. Reagan said so....and I believe him because I love that movie "Bedtime for Bonzo"

Monkeys are adorbs!
 
2013-10-05 11:17:01 AM

Dinki: Yes but how many have refrigerators?


And cell phones?
 
2013-10-05 11:36:24 AM
Government taxes bad, corporate price gouging good

knbber2: Dinki: Yes but how many have refrigerators?

And cell phones?


Not counting Obamaphones?
 
2013-10-05 11:46:43 AM
'Nearly 50 years after President Lyndon B Johnson launched the "war on poverty" program that ushered in social security, Medicare and Medicaid amongst others ...'

Perhaps it's because those tactics are fundamentally flawed. Oh, and a nice tip of the hat to LBJ's alterations to SS.

Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.
 
2013-10-05 12:01:45 PM

Mrbogey: Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.


8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.
 
2013-10-05 12:17:01 PM
What Republicans want poor people to be like:

gdb.voanews.com
 
2013-10-05 12:24:31 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.


blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2013-10-05 12:27:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mrtroll: Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.


More to the point, Clinton actually went to work fixing the problem.  Whereas lowering the top tax bracket 3.6% and playing geopolitical hopscotch were more important to Bush.

I'm not gonna keep calling 911 once the medics arrive.
 
2013-10-05 12:29:49 PM

Mrbogey: Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 678x460]


Okay, you're right.  If only the War on Poverty never got in the way, we'd have like -30% poverty.
 
2013-10-05 02:00:18 PM
*sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.
 
2013-10-05 02:51:02 PM

Mrbogey: 'Nearly 50 years after President Lyndon B Johnson launched the "war on poverty" program that ushered in social security, Medicare and Medicaid amongst others ...'

Perhaps it's because those tactics are fundamentally flawed. Oh, and a nice tip of the hat to LBJ's alterations to SS.

Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.


Well, let's see here.  Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem.  And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge.  Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge.  Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.
 
2013-10-05 03:00:37 PM

timujin: Mrbogey: 'Nearly 50 years after President Lyndon B Johnson launched the "war on poverty" program that ushered in social security, Medicare and Medicaid amongst others ...'

Perhaps it's because those tactics are fundamentally flawed. Oh, and a nice tip of the hat to LBJ's alterations to SS.

Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

Well, let's see here.  Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem.  And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge.  Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge.  Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.


This is different. Obama is ineffectual and that is why poverty is so high. He'd rather raise taxes and enlarge the government and it's free programs than fix anything. He's working hard to hurt the poor. What a lazy lieberal.
 
2013-10-05 03:03:29 PM
I thought Fox News pointed out that 99% of the "poor" in this country have refrigerators, therefore they're not really poor.  Are you telling me Fox News lied?!

*faints from the vapors*
 
2013-10-05 03:03:34 PM

timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.


First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?
 
2013-10-05 03:18:35 PM

Mrbogey: timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?


You do impress me with how quickly you move those goalposts.

Prior to this, no one was talking about poverty in America during Obama's term in office, not once in any U.S. news outlet was the topic broached.  Or, you're just full of shiat.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the latter.
 
2013-10-05 03:26:21 PM
Funny thing about welfare people.  First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them.  They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money.  It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough
 
2013-10-05 03:31:03 PM
Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.
 
2013-10-05 03:31:15 PM

Mrbogey: Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 678x460]


You are bad at inferring things from graphs and should not be allowed to brain unsupervised.
 
2013-10-05 03:31:56 PM

Mrbogey: timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?


And there it is. Has anyone else noticed how over the past few weeks right wingers have become increasing defensive and belligerent? Desperation is never a good look guys.
 
2013-10-05 03:33:53 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about welfare people.  First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them.  They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money.  It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough


Seems legit.  We need to punish them more.  That way they wouldn't want to be poor anymore.
 
2013-10-05 03:34:37 PM

knbber2: Dinki: Yes but how many have refrigerators?

And cell phones?


And flat screen tv sets.
 
2013-10-05 03:34:51 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about welfare people.  First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them.  They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money.  It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough


That has never been true, ever, and is dogmatic nonsense from lying assholes who want to steal more and more from people with less and less to steal. You know what creates systemic poverty? Wealth disparity.
 
2013-10-05 03:35:30 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about welfare people.  First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them.  They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money.  It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough


Yeah Liebruuls are the real racists. They wanna keep African and Latin Americans "on the plantation" is that how this one is gonna go?

Keep reachin'
 
2013-10-05 03:37:16 PM
And yet we have a shortage of ditch diggers???
 
2013-10-05 03:37:48 PM

Mrbogey: timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/02/us/uninsured-americans -m ap.html?_r=0

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/20/20457620-all-you-ca n- do-is-pray-what-poverty-in-america-really-
looks-like?lite

http://www.thenation.com/article/176242/americas-shameful-poverty-st at s

Just pulled these from a quick google news search.

Among them are NY Times and The Nation. Ya' know, hard corps conservative outlets.

I think we can all mark you as a liar or just ignore you now. Bye.
 
2013-10-05 03:37:55 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about welfare people.  First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them.  They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money.  It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough


Funny how nobody ever tries to make the argument that taxing capital gains at a lower rate than income breeds dependency...
 
2013-10-05 03:39:44 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: What Republicans want poor people to be like:

[gdb.voanews.com image 850x566]


Why have they not sold that ball?  Why are they wasting their day not looking for a job?  Look at that kid's arm; he's kinda ripped.  He obviously has way too much to eat if he's able to maintain that much muscle mass.

Infernalist: Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.


I always love that.
"Murikan exceptionalism!  We're the greatest nation on earf!!!"
"Well, we've still got a lot of hungry people, homeless veterans, people that can't read.  Let's keep working to reduce that."
"They've got it worse in other countries!  Therefore, Murika!!!"
"Here's this video of a cop pepper-spraying a bunch of kids sitting there, protesting peacefully.  That's not what we're about."
"Those goddamn liberal kids are lucky they live in Murika!  If this was some other country they would've been mowed down with a farking AK!! Murika!!!"
"Umm, either we're a great nation, and a shining example for the rest of the world, or we're happy with being 'not the worst,' but we can't have them both.  Which is it, Mr. Teabagger?"
"Shut up, you liberal hippie leftist!  I luv muh country! Murika!""
 
2013-10-05 03:41:20 PM

Pocket Ninja: OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society that simply doesn't exist in any reality.


FTFA

/yea yea don't feed the troll
 
2013-10-05 03:41:46 PM

gingerjet: Pocket Ninja: OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society that simply doesn't exist in any reality.

FTFA

/yea yea don't feed the troll


....lol oh wow
 
2013-10-05 03:42:44 PM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.


F*CKING GENIUS
 
2013-10-05 03:44:21 PM
But corporate welfare, that's just American and entitled. I'm very happy with my station in life, I'm quite comfortable but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that the 1% aren't knowingly and gleefully farking over the poor and then acting victimized because they have to pay into the welfare system.
 
2013-10-05 03:46:34 PM
Trickle on economics has failed so hard and so consistently for 30 years, and conservatives just keep flagellating themselves with it.  Seriously at this point what more can we do for the rich job creators before this somehow magically works?  Let them shoot poor people for sport?
 
2013-10-05 03:49:23 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about welfare people.  First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them.  They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money.  It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough


Well, sure. There they are, relying on welfare and food stamps, and do you see anyone helping them?

craigtnelson.jpg
 
2013-10-05 03:49:36 PM
What 15% of the rich should we start cutting off?

Oh...TAX cuts...
 
2013-10-05 03:49:37 PM
Well, the losers already pay 0%, so how would you cut their taxes? Reduce the tax rate to -40%?
 
2013-10-05 03:54:15 PM

Infernalist: Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.


Worse yet, the louder people complain, the more likely it becomes that a lot of white rural social conservatives will look up and find out which side of the poverty line they- and most everyone they know- have really been sitting on for all these years.  Can't have that.
 
2013-10-05 03:59:06 PM

SevenizGud: how would you cut their taxes? Reduce the tax rate to -40%?


That would be a negative income tax. Some believe it a good idea.
 
2013-10-05 04:00:30 PM
More like the 1% has overextended itself hogging all the resources and capital in the past 50 years alone that they NEED tax cuts to continue the illusion of their wasteful flamboyant lives, both in business and privately.
 
2013-10-05 04:04:46 PM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.




I... I love you
 
2013-10-05 04:05:47 PM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.


You, sir, are a national treasure. Luckily for us you are one of the essentials, and your tenure will continue regardless of how long the shutdown lasts.
 
2013-10-05 04:06:12 PM
Pretty soon the hyper-rich will suck the rest of us dry. What happens then?
 
2013-10-05 04:06:30 PM
Is it just me, or does the graph posted above actually making the opposite point of its poster? It looks to me that after LBJ was out of office(who was in charge next, hmmm) it trends upward followed by slight decline under the leadership of history's former greatest monster, then back up under the greatest hero America has ever known then back down under Clinton, back up under Bush2.

Maybe it's just me.
 
2013-10-05 04:07:11 PM

SevenizGud: Well, the losers already pay 0%, so how would you cut their taxes? Reduce the tax rate to -40%?


The poor don't have to pay sales tax on anything? I wish I was poor! They get off easy compared to those over burdened rich people who have to pay 11% income tax. Plus the fees that go to parking their capital gains overseas but that goes to the lawyers, not the government.
 
2013-10-05 04:08:54 PM

fusillade762: Pretty soon the hyper-rich will suck the rest of us dry. What happens then?


Well, unfortunately for them they've spent 40 years distracting a large portion of the plebes with "they're gonna take yur gunz! Better buy more gunz!"
 
2013-10-05 04:10:37 PM
AKA: middle class in most of the developing world.
 
2013-10-05 04:11:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

F*CKING GENIUS


Ehhh, he accurately re-created the incredible amounts of herp and derp found on the right, but none of the humor regularly expected from PN.  There are plenty of lesser posters to get regular non-funny trolling from.  Disappointing.  8/10 on the normal troll scale, but only 2 or 3/10 on the PN scale.
 
2013-10-05 04:13:06 PM
Pocket Ninja is gonna have to create a new account with all the fanboys giving him away in every thread now.
 
2013-10-05 04:14:28 PM

Dinki: Yes but how many have refrigerators?


Yeah, the Guardian is basically arguing here that the issue of Americans living in poverty is either under-represented or not represented at all in American media when in fact there is one "news" channel that can reliably be called upon to misrepresent the issue on a regular basis.

Which seems only fitting for a media concern that carriers water for the one political party that actively disdains the working poor and the out and out impoverished.

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

[awesomeness redacted for brevity's sake]

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.


You. You I like.
 
2013-10-05 04:14:53 PM

super_grass: AKA: middle class in most of the developing world.


'MURIKAH! WE'RE STILL BETTER THAN THE DEVELOPING WORLD!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report