Failure of the Welfare State

[JoeB131]

Africa and India

Because they don't promote real free markets systems enough

What does that even mean? jeezus you people

Especially since India is one of the booming economies of the world. Still grindingly poor, but moved up in the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The welfare states of the world have lower poverty rates than the non-welfare states of the world,

don't they, on average?

Explain that.

You want me to explain that statistics can be manipulated?

Really?

There are Lies.

There are Damn Lies.

There are Statistics.

Did you take the OP to task on that, given that the entire original premise of this thread is based on statistics?

I'm guessing, no, you didn't.

Samson seems to have vanished. Maybe he's out for a haircut.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You want me to explain that statistics can be manipulated?

Really?

There are Lies.

There are Damn Lies.

There are Statistics.

Did you take the OP to task on that, given that the entire original premise of this thread is based on statistics?

I'm guessing, no, you didn't.

Samson seems to have vanished. Maybe he's out for a haircut.

Hey....I believe you've written the headline for November seventh!

"Obama seems to have vanished. Maybe he's out for a fund-raiser!"

 

[Listening]

"Obama seems to have vanished. Maybe he's out for a fund-raiser!"

President Obama has headlined 127 fundraising events for himself and others, significantly outpacing the fundraising activity of the previous five presidents during their first terms, new research obtained by USA TODAY shows.

By comparison, President George W. Bush had held 88 fundraisers and President Clinton, 76, at this point in their first terms, according to data compiled by Brendan Doherty, an assistant professor of politicial science at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. Doherty, who also studies presidential activity with the non-partisan White House Transition Project, examined fundraising going back to President Carter.

The upswing reflects the soaring costs of campaigns and politicians' abandonment of the presidential public-financing system that limits what candidates can raise from private sources in exchange for receiving taxpayer money, Doherty and other experts say.

Obama outpaces fundraising activity of predecessors - USATODAY.com

But you would have thought that liberals, being so smart, would not need to see all those TV ads. Hhhhmmmm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already posted that the expansion of the food stamp program, by Obama,
actually LOWERED THE POVERTY RATE,
thus demolishing all of your idiotic premises.

Speaking of an idiotic premise...

Percentage of people below poverty level
2009 14.3
2010 15.1
2011 ?
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau
table 5

1: Show that the percentage of people below poverty level wend down in 2011
2: Show that The Obama's "expansion of the food stamp program" caused this.

I'm sorry you entered the thread late, but I'm not going to post everything twice.

Translation: You got nuthin.
Good to see some things never change.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Africa and India

Because they don't promote real free markets systems enough

What does that even mean? jeezus you people

This post is funny in so many ways.......for me i'm laughing at BOTH of you

 

[Lovebears65]

"Obama seems to have vanished. Maybe he's out for a fund-raiser!"

President Obama has headlined 127 fundraising events for himself and others, significantly outpacing the fundraising activity of the previous five presidents during their first terms, new research obtained by USA TODAY shows.

By comparison, President George W. Bush had held 88 fundraisers and President Clinton, 76, at this point in their first terms, according to data compiled by Brendan Doherty, an assistant professor of politicial science at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. Doherty, who also studies presidential activity with the non-partisan White House Transition Project, examined fundraising going back to President Carter.

The upswing reflects the soaring costs of campaigns and politicians' abandonment of the presidential public-financing system that limits what candidates can raise from private sources in exchange for receiving taxpayer money, Doherty and other experts say.

Obama outpaces fundraising activity of predecessors - USATODAY.com

But you would have thought that liberals, being so smart, would not need to see all those TV ads. Hhhhmmmm.

Because you know Obama doesnt have anything better to do but fundraises. Its not like gas prices are through the roof. Unemployment is still up, They still have no budget . But he lets go fund raise so he can be president for another 4 years and do nothing but waste our tax dollars

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.

4. Since 1964 the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.


5. ...federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man,
woman, and child in this country. For a typical poor family of three, that amounts to
more than $44,500. Combined with state and
local spending, government spends $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830
per poor family of three. Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we
should have theoretically wiped out poverty
in America many times over.

6. . the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).


7. The vast majority of current programs are focused
on making poverty more comfortablegiving poor people more food, better shelter,
health care, and so forthrather than giving
people the tools that will help them escape
poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid
idea of the keys to getting out of and staying
out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not
get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a
job, any job, and stick with it.

a. ...we can add one more important stepping stone on
the road out of povertysavings and the accumulation of wealth.
... for the vast majority of households,
the pathway out of poverty is not through
consumption, but through saving and accumulation.
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
Scribd


Again:
"only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility,"

So....conservatives were right....

The choice in November is clear.

Black Poverty is Associated with Leftism, Not Racism