Wealthy America?!?

[alpha]

- Forty-six percent of all "poor households" actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ In good economic times or bad , the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year. (emphasis added) That amounts to 16 hours of work per week.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Source: Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Understanding Poverty in America”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm


Damn! I wish I was a poor man in America :D

I am curious to know what any Americans think of these stats. A few people I know that have been to the US tell me that its portrayal in movies is inaccurate and that some places are as bad as in India.

[Busyman]

I disagree.
I've been in some shitty inner city parts and the living conditions are not THAT bad.
Granted there are exceptions and I can't speak about parts outside the Metropolitan areas.

There are programs which allow a person of lower income to purchase a home with "special" rates and/or elimination of certain fees.

Basically it's sort of a reverse handicapping system or like being graded on a curve.

[MagicNakor]

I'm not in the United States (although I've spent a fair bit of time there), but a fair chunk of it seems to be rubbish, with the exception of point four, but only because the United States is quite a bit larger than most European countries, thus giving more space to people.

Something else to consider would be the debt load people are living under. Mortgages, car payments, utility bills, medical bills and other payment plan options aren't considered in those statistics.

Those averages don't count for too much (in the description of the housing situation), because there are "castles" in the United States, which are really going to push that average up. They also don't count for much in the work-week-length average, unless this is completely discounting the "working poor," a often-neglected and rather large chunk of society.

I don't know what The Heritage Foundation is, but it seems pretty right-wing to me. Then I go check the About Us page...maybe I shouldn't write and read at the same time. ;)


:ninja:

[alpha]

MagicNakor: the United States is quite a bit larger than most European countries, thus giving more space to people.

That doesn’t matter. Density of population is relevant not land area.

[alpha]

Something else to consider would be the debt load people are living under. Mortgages, car payments, utility bills, medical bills and other payment plan options aren't considered in those statistics.

:huh: I think you didnt read it through before posting

". Some 70 percent of poor households report that during the course of the past year they were able to meet "all essential expenses," including mortgage, rent, utility bills, and important medical care.30 (See Chart 5.)



However, two caveats should be applied to this generally optimistic picture. First, many poor families have difficulty paying their regular bills and must scramble to make ends meet. For example, around one-quarter of poor families are late in paying the rent or utility bills at some point during the year."

[MagicNakor]

Population density is directly related to land area. It's the number of people per square mile. If you want an analogy: twenty people in an elevator is quite crowded. Twenty people in a ballroom is a little sparse.

You can easily rack up debt and be "able to meet essential expenses." Credit card debt, for example, doesn't have to be paid off in any forseeable time frame. And if someone's paying the absolute minimum to keep the creditors at bay, they'll have been considered to have paid their bills. With the average credit card debt is $8,940, and making minimum payments, they'll be in debt for 89.4 years, assuming that nothing else is charged. "Scrambling to make ends meet" is certainly no way to live.

:ninja:

[ilw]

Originally posted by alpha@31 March 2004 - 07:56
- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

thats such a crap statistic, its comparing 'poor' people (probably many of them rural) with some of the most expensive places to live on the planet. A 3 bedroom house in paris or london could probably buy a couple of streets of cheap, but spacious rural houses. Also the statistic specifies living space, so i'm betting they include gardens and property, ie entire farms, that much land in a city isn't feasible no matter how rich you are. I bet the statistic could easily have compared the average poor person to any heavily built up city in America and found the same thing. All the statistic shows is that rural people actually have more living space than inner city dwellers, its not specific to America, its common sense. The statistic is so heavily skewed by the comparision of urban to rural that the relative sizes of Europe nad America and popuulation density don't even come into it imo. If you compared the size of 'poor' peoples houses in America and Europe i'm sure you would still find American houses bigger and that may have been of some interest and the relative sizes of the countries etc may be of some importance, but comparing cities to rednecks?
Other than that, it was quite interesting, whats the definition of 'poor' in America?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 March 2004 - 05:57
Population density is directly related to land area. It's the number of people per square mile. If you want an analogy: twenty people in an elevator is quite crowded. Twenty people in a ballroom is a little sparse.
That is absolutely incorrect.

Metropolitan areas are densely populated in a small area.
The midwest for example is a large land mass with sparse population.

Population density is directly related to businesses and jobs.

edit: oh yea and alot of fucking.

[ang3968]

Originally posted by alpha@31 March 2004 - 17:56
- Forty-six percent of all "poor households" actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.


is that actually own debt free or have a mortgage....

I'm curious as to how they come up with that figure.....

I say I own my own home but in reality the bank owns half of it, and will do for another 6 yrs or so...

[Barbarossa]

...and also, how can you have half a bath??? :blink: What use is half a bath anyway, all the water will run away...

:(

[Busyman]

Originally posted by barbarossa@31 March 2004 - 07:54
...and also, how can you have half a bath??? :blink: What use is half a bath anyway, all the water will run away...

:(
Your joking right?

No tub mate.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

<_< What a bunch of crap.Show me a man who is makeing &#036;5.25 an Hour(which is the minimum wage here) with a three-bedroom home after supporting a wife and 3 kids..Yeah right&#33;

He is lucky if he has a 3 Bedroom Trailer for them kids.

And do not believe nothing you see on TV.Nothing but a bunch of crap.One of the most real Shows to ever be made was Rosanne.Yes that Rosanne.Real working class people who was barely getting by.Not that shit you see on Friends.


And sorry to any of you people who say you are a poor college student.Yeah right.Nobody who hangs out on this Forum and who is from America is Poor.You would not be here.

Some of us here might be what is called "lower class" America.But we are not Poor.We might not have hardly anything.But thank you Lord.....we are not Poor.


heritage.org can kiss my American White Ass&#33;


*sorry.Just had to comment on that.....being a High School American drop out with a Mother who has been a Waitress almost her whole life and Father who worked in a Factory all of his.*

[MagicNakor]

Population/square miles (or kilometres) of the area = people per square mile, or population density.

The United States has a population density of 30.15. Pretty much 30 people per square kilometre. France has a population density of 110.01. Obviously the average guy from the US (poor or not) is going to have more "living space" than the average guy from France.

People tend to congregate in favourable areas. Alaska, for example, isn&#39;t in danger of being overpopulated. However, that doesn&#39;t change the population density of a country when being compared to the population density of other countries, which is what The Heritage Foundation did.

:ninja:

[Barbarossa]

Population Densities of Countries (http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_density_0.html)

[j2k4]

Actually, the only relevant comparisons are at the absolute extremes of the spectrum.

Are the poorest of the poor in the U.S. as poor as those in, say, Haiti?

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

They are, however, probably poorer then the poor in France or Germany.

The line gets a bit blurry when the U.S. government decides to define poverty, which condition might be considered absolutely luxuriant by world standards.

I&#39;ll leave off discussing the rich; they don&#39;t warrant space in this thread.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by j2k4@31 March 2004 - 10:25
Are the poorest of the poor in the U.S. as poor as those in, say, Haiti?

Not by any stretch of the imagination.
;) Ok.I will agree to that.Hell, I would rather be the poorest man in American then some Places I have only seen on TV and read about.

[vidcc]

There is a problem with poverty in the usa where people have to make choices such as food or electricity, healthcare or fuel at times. We don&#39;t have the benefit system than they have in the UK
The point of home ownership is kind of complex, The type of abode isn&#39;t taken into account with the statistics. Some homes are nothing more than shacks and trailers (air conditioning might be in the form of a cheap to buy "swamp cooler" which is very different from refridgerated temperature controlled air con). The building codes in many areas mean houses are cheaper to build, made of a type of partical (chip) board with stucco plaster coating and felt roof tiles instead of slate or clay...why do you think they burn so well? Also to someone in the Uk airconditioning seems like a luxury...but then where i live we wouldn&#39;t have central heating because most of the year the temp. is in the 100.f.
In the cities property is more expensive because of the employment availability and the denseness on population making homes more in demand therefore the price is higher. However out in the rural areas, dependent on location of course it&#39;s possible to buy a 3-4 bed house starting from about &#036;20,000....for the English here let me put that in a shocking term...1 uk pound is worth almost 1.9 us dollars.
Land is cheap in many areas and as pointed out many houses are in poor condition.
realtor.com (http://www.realtor.com/Default.asp?poe=realtor)
try for yourself and see where the cheapest 3 bed house is....make the max price 30000 :D tip...the mid south west is a good place to start..or if you like water...try niagra falls

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@31 March 2004 - 11:41
There is a problem with poverty in the usa where people have to make choices such as food or electricity, healthcare or fuel at times.
I had the impression the subject was the relative wealth of America&#39;s poor compared to the poor in other parts of the world.

The unfortunate circumstance of having to decide between food, electricity, fuel or healthcare pales when compared to having no such choices to make, and no prospect of change.

I think that is what is meant by the term "grinding poverty".

[vidcc]

j2 i know this will proably freak you out....but i agree 100% with you about the subject being about the relative poverty to other parts of the world :lol: ......HOWEVER..... i was pointing out the sort of things that do go on here...i wasn&#39;t suggesting that we have it worse than anyone else. That said in a country such as this the excuses that such things could happen seem pitiful and immoral. And the question was about how americans see the report.
In making comparisons worldwide you have to decide what is actually poverty and the definition is relative to the general lifestyle and developement of the nation.
Mudhuts are common in parts of the world, but that is the way they have always been. they are not developed by our definition but they live the way their ancestors have..does that mean because they don&#39;t have mcdonalds that they are impoverished? of course not...However a family that lives in the heart of a city that has no money and can&#39;t afford heating because they need food would be.if we set the standard at US or european adverages then possibly 60+% of the worlds population live in poverty.
don&#39;t misunderstand me......i am a humanist and i want everyone to live a life enjoying the best we can offer (not talking luxury just a basic standard)

[Biggles]

I would tend to agree that it is relative poverty that counts here.

However, the poverty that really gets people down is not the relative poverty of living in a poor area of the US to, say, living in a poor area of Madras. The real issue that is in the faces (if I may use an Americanism) of the poor of, for example, LA is the wealth of those in LA.

It is hard to look on the bright side if you are struggling to put petrol in your car as someone drives by in a Rolls. Relative deprivation is what causes unrest, street riots and crime. People do not (on the whole) riot etc., because they think someone in France has a nicer life style.

The poor may envy the rich, but, by and large, their aspiration is not simply to be at the bottom of the pile somewhere else where the dung may be a little less smelly. Those that re-locate have aspirations to drive the Rolls not stand in the social security line. Consequently, once the difficulty of "making it" becomes apparent, deviant routes to success through crime etc., pull the lazy and weaker-willed off course.

[j2k4]

Boy, Biggles, when you bring up L.A.-

The entire ball-of-wax in microcosm.

There are areas in L.A. where a skunk would have a risky go; then you have Hollywood, whose denizens pay lip-service to the misfortunes of the poor while denying them access to beaches and otherwise trying to insulate themselves from the problem.

Cynicism and hypocrisy.

I&#39;d better stop, or I&#39;ll get started... :angry:

I should note here that life is not fair, will never be fair, and it is impossible to mitigate this through legislation.

We can work towards fairness of opportunity, but we are helpless to effect a fairness of result.

In the end, it depends on the individual, whose reliablity is often suspect.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

:P WASP. :P

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@31 March 2004 - 10:58
Boy, Biggles, when you bring up L.A.-

The entire ball-of-wax in microcosm.

There are areas in L.A. where a skunk would have a risky go; then you have Hollywood, whose denizens pay lip-service to the misfortunes of the poor while denying them access to beaches and otherwise trying to insulate themselves from the problem.

Cynicism and hypocrisy.

I&#39;d better stop, or I&#39;ll get started... :angry:
Oh go on.....even when i don&#39;t agree i do enjoy it when you actually start to rant :lol:

you did hit on a big point about the diffences in LA that most of the world misses because they just see the glitter....it&#39;s like that on a less showbiz scale all over the US.
We are capitalists so we need to have poverty to sustain the rich. It seems wrong but just look at how even the poorest person will stand up in pride when the president calls the US the "greatest nation on earth" :D

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by vidcc@31 March 2004 - 14:06
just look at how even the poorest person will stand up in pride when the president calls the US the "greatest nation on earth"
:D Damn right we are&#33; :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@31 March 2004 - 13:06
We are capitalists so we need to have poverty to sustain the rich.
:huh:

What?&#33;&#33;??

Economics is not a Zero-sum proposition, vidcc.

Wealth is created and expanded; it is not finite.

The wealthy are not always wealthy at the expense of, or detriment to, those not so fortunate.

Where did you ever get such an idea? :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@31 March 2004 - 13:05
<_< Fucking WASP.
Did I miss something? :huh:

I did add an edit to my post, but gee whiz, FC...

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by j2k4+31 March 2004 - 14:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 31 March 2004 - 14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@31 March 2004 - 13:05
<_< Fucking WASP.
Did I miss something? :huh:

I did add an edit to my post, but gee whiz, FC... [/b][/quote]
:huh: Sorry. :P

[Biggles]

I have always thought the "white" in WASP was redundant, but there you go. :rolleyes:


I think one key factor of Capitalism is that it has an internal contradiction. Each business tries to make their product as cost effectively as possible and consequently wants to pay staff as little as possible. On the other hand they want their market to be as affluent as possible so they can sell their product to as many people as possible.

The ideal, therefore, is for all ones competitors to pay high domestic salaries and for ones own company to have outsourced to a village in Tibet. Thus the market will be cash rich and ones product will be the most cost competitive (if perhaps smelling somewhat of Yak).

The upshot of this is that a Capitalist economy is always in a state of flux. The poor are not "needed" as such they are merely a by-product of changing priorities. Hence the once prosperous steel towns which are now just shadows of their former glory etc.,

Communism is much slower to change and consequently is more stable for those at the bottom of the tree. It is also slower to react to market demand and innovation and consequently tends to be a tad dull. This perhaps explains the enduring attachment in China, where living in "interesting times" is considered a curse.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+31 March 2004 - 11:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 31 March 2004 - 11:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@31 March 2004 - 13:06
We are capitalists so we need to have poverty to sustain the rich.
:huh:

What?&#33;&#33;??

Economics is not a Zero-sum proposition, vidcc.

Wealth is created and expanded; it is not finite.

The wealthy are not always wealthy at the expense of, or detriment to, those not so fortunate.

Where did you ever get such an idea? :blink: [/b][/quote]
capitalism is a complex thing...all i did was simplify it...a basic definition (but not absolute) man exploits man
It&#39;s not an issue about complexeties in my post. Capitalism needs exploitation or it would be more a socialism (i don&#39;t like saying comunism as the way it was run wasn&#39;t really how the ideal should have been).
i am a capitalist myself but i am aslo a humanitarian.

Going to take my kids to the park so i will look in later :D

[Rat Faced]

I think the definition of "poor" needs to be looked at.

In the UK, its 60% of the average wage...

This means that you can be "poor" and still have a relatively healthy income, as the "average wage" is slanted by a relatively few number of people getting ridiculously high salaries....

I wish to god i was on the "Average Wage"....as do most people i know :)

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 March 2004 - 19:46
The ideal, therefore, is for all ones competitors to pay high domestic salaries and for ones own company to have outsourced to a village in Tibet. Thus the market will be cash rich and ones product will be the most cost competitive (if perhaps smelling somewhat of Yak).
That is not the true capitalist ideal. Much of what goes on in business today is not capitalist driven, it is greed driven.

If you take a look back to some of your great American capitalists, that is the men who defined modern capitalism, their aim was to sell products that increased the quality of life to such an extent that their customers were financially comfortable enough to continue buying their products.

Henry Ford for example paid his workers more than he had to, for the simple reason that by having well paid employees and an efficient production process (run by those employees) every one of the people who worked at Ford were able to buy the cars they made, which meant he would be able to sell that many more cars.

A true capitalist realizes that with the enormous power they have (money) they have to be responsible membrs of the community. Bill Gates is one of the few rich people now who is following the ideal, by giving away computers to kids who will be relying on them for the rest of their lives, and donating money to other worthy causes.

Names like the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation will always be synonymous with great weath, built on the American Dream, and still do great works for the community years after their founders have passed away.

So if you have a plan to become filthy rich which does not include giving your money away to create a better world, you&#39;re not a capitalist, you&#39;re just f*cking greedy.

[j2k4]

There are signs of actual understanding in the previous post&#33; :)

Well done, Alex. ;)

Philanthropic, altruistic entrepeneurialism.

They&#39;re not all evil.

[alpha]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 March 2004 - 19:49
I would tend to agree that it is relative poverty that counts here.

However, the poverty that really gets people down is not the relative poverty of living in a poor area of the US to, say, living in a poor area of Madras. The real issue that is in the faces (if I may use an Americanism) of the poor of, for example, LA is the wealth of those in LA.

It is hard to look on the bright side if you are struggling to put petrol in your car as someone drives by in a Rolls. Relative deprivation is what causes unrest, street riots and crime. People do not (on the whole) riot etc., because they think someone in France has a nicer life style.

The poor may envy the rich, but, by and large, their aspiration is not simply to be at the bottom of the pile somewhere else where the dung may be a little less smelly. Those that re-locate have aspirations to drive the Rolls not stand in the social security line. Consequently, once the difficulty of "making it" becomes apparent, deviant routes to success through crime etc., pull the lazy and weaker-willed off course.
If you were to bring a "poor" person from my country(India) to the US and give him the lifestyle of a "poor" person there, I think he would be quite content. His children might feel otherwise. Social inequality is not an issue to one who is in such a state of destitution as is seen over here.

The problem with the term poverty is that it is a relative term. A century from now it is quite possible that I would be considered extremely poor based on my comforts or the perceived lack of them.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 April 2004 - 05:21
There are signs of actual understanding in the previous post&#33; :)

Well done, Alex. ;)
Aww, gee&#33; Thanks J2k4. I didn&#39;t know you cared :clap:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H+31 March 2004 - 23:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 31 March 2004 - 23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 April 2004 - 05:21
There are signs of actual understanding in the previous post&#33; :)

Well done, Alex. ;)
Aww, gee&#33; Thanks J2k4. I didn&#39;t know you cared :clap: [/b][/quote]
It is quite possible that you will never know how much, Alex. ;)

[Alex H]

I feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside now. :D

Thanks

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

:D Off to MCDonalds to get .50 cent CheeseBurgers.About 10 of them. :D


Gob Bless America&#33;

[alpha]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@1 April 2004 - 08:25
:D Off to MCDonalds to get .50 cent CheeseBurgers.About 10 of them. :D


Gob Bless America&#33;
Hah&#33; They&#39;re cheaper here B)

[UnOwen1]

Originally posted by alpha@30 March 2004 - 23:56

- Forty-six percent of all "poor households" actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family&#39;s essential needs.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ In good economic times or bad , the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year. (emphasis added) That amounts to 16 hours of work per week.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Source: Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Understanding Poverty in America”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm


Damn&#33; I wish I was a poor man in America :D

I am curious to know what any Americans think of these stats. A few people I know that have been to the US tell me that its portrayal in movies is inaccurate and that some places are as bad as in India.
Owning a home in america is actually a misnomer. The statistics you quote is actually double-speak for the percentage of americans who have entered into a contract to PURCHACE a home. This can take up to 30 years, If at all. The percentage of americans who actually OWN A HOME (like me, shack as it may be)is more like 12%. and then you never really own it anymore. Miss 3 tax payments, and YOU ARE HISTORY..

[clocker]

Originally posted by UnOwen1@1 April 2004 - 02:59

Owning a home in america is actually a misnomer. The statistics you quote is actually double-speak for the percentage of americans who have entered into a contract to PURCHACE a home. This can take up to 30 years, If at all. The percentage of americans who actually OWN A HOME (like me, shack as it may be)is more like 12%. and then you never really own it anymore. Miss 3 tax payments, and YOU ARE HISTORY..
Just so.
Indeed, many Americans really don&#39;t "own" their cars or any of the big ticket items in their possession...they were purchased on credit.

Credit may be a wonderful thing ( I personally don&#39;t think so), but it leads to the loss of the most important item of all...the freedom to control your future.
Carrying a giant debt load means that you must consider your ability to make payments above any other priority.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+1 April 2004 - 08:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 April 2004 - 08:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-UnOwen1@1 April 2004 - 02:59

Owning a home in america is actually a misnomer. The statistics you quote is actually double-speak for the percentage of americans who have entered into a contract to PURCHACE a home. This can take up to 30 years, If at all. The percentage of americans who actually OWN A HOME&nbsp; (like me, shack as it may be)is more like 12%. and then you never really own it anymore. Miss 3 tax payments, and YOU ARE HISTORY..
Just so.
Indeed, many Americans really don&#39;t "own" their cars or any of the big ticket items in their possession...they were purchased on credit.

Credit may be a wonderful thing ( I personally don&#39;t think so), but it leads to the loss of the most important item of all...the freedom to control your future.
Carrying a giant debt load means that you must consider your ability to make payments above any other priority. [/b][/quote]
HERE, HERE&#33;&#33;&#33;

Welcome back, sir. :)

[clocker]

There&#33; There&#33;

I haven&#39;t been gone....just mute.
Only now unthawing from my visit to your Winter Wonderland.

[j2k4]

Cake, please.

You are ensconced at your own PC, then?

Well done&#33;

Do you have a flag?

EDIT:

BTW-

We have now become a Spring Soggyland.

[clocker]

No, I am still up in TC.

"Control, P, Print&#33;"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@1 April 2004 - 11:47
No, I am still up in TC.

"Control, P, Print&#33;"
:lol:

Yup.

You had gone before I realized we had missed Circle which I have on DVD.

Next time, then? :)

[clocker]

Have you Dressed To Kill?

If not, why? you wealthy American....

[j2k4]

It was the first one we watched, sir.

"Did I leave the gas on?

No...No, I&#39;m a fucking squirrel&#33;"

[clocker]

Oh.

Must have been all the Cuban rum....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@1 April 2004 - 12:37
Oh.

Must have been all the Cuban rum....
Uh-uh.

Wuz dat demon Turkey. :D

[vidcc]

Originally posted by clocker+1 April 2004 - 06:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 April 2004 - 06:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-UnOwen1@1 April 2004 - 02:59

Owning a home in america is actually a misnomer. The statistics you quote is actually double-speak for the percentage of americans who have entered into a contract to PURCHACE a home. This can take up to 30 years, If at all. The percentage of americans who actually OWN A HOME&nbsp; (like me, shack as it may be)is more like 12%. and then you never really own it anymore. Miss 3 tax payments, and YOU ARE HISTORY..
Just so.
Indeed, many Americans really don&#39;t "own" their cars or any of the big ticket items in their possession...they were purchased on credit.

Credit may be a wonderful thing ( I personally don&#39;t think so), but it leads to the loss of the most important item of all...the freedom to control your future.
Carrying a giant debt load means that you must consider your ability to make payments above any other priority. [/b][/quote]
Well that could be said about most developed countries. Few people have the cash to buy outright, however the classification is there because at some point the home will be paid off as oppose to paying rent for the rest of their life, so i personally have no problem with that particular part of the statistics.
A home owned is considered an asset and can be at risk if one owes money and is unable to pay...property of any kind with monetry value is always at risk.

[Biggles]

Alex

I would agree that the world does not have to be the way it is. I was, however, observing what I consider the norm rather than the ideal.

There are a number of examples of the philanthropist, not least Scotland&#39;s own Carnegie. They are noted by history, however, precisely for their rarity value. For every Carnegie there are dozens of Enrons (most of whom do not get found out).