Drinking my second cup of coffee this morning, brewed at home in my $20.00 coffee maker (that's served us faithfully for several years) I see this screen shot from Matt Yglesias. Courtesy of Instapundit.
photo he references to show the poverty stricken children:
assigned by the US government. Simply a family of four is considered poverty-stricken if they have an income of less than $24,250. That's over $2,000 a month coming in to the household, plus they qualify for lots of federal benefits, to include food stamps, free school lunches, and subsidized medical care.
Obviously, it's not the kids fault that they're "poverty-stricken", but poverty today doesn't look like what poverty looked like when I was a kid. I was never in poverty, but as a young adult, I raised kids with a lot less than $24k per year. We had food on the table, a roof over our heads, a car in the yard. The kids were fed, educated, loved, and their illnesses cured without the government. We were cash-strapped sometimes, but we were never in poverty.
Then, Yglesias shows his idiocy by posting that he just bought coffee with his watch. Perhaps Matthew should sell his hi-tech watch, make coffee at home, and give the proceeds to the poverty-stricken children. But, he's not going to do that. He believes that the government should pay for everyone. The dissonance is jarring, but Yglesias seems to not recognize it. He's a typical progressive.
EDIT: My math was wrong above. It's fixed.