Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Cause its only poor folks who are voting Democrat, right? I mean we all know that all those urban areas like New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, etc, which always vote Democrat are just desperately poor. While those incredibly rich businessmen in Alabama and Mississippi just keep their state voting red.
Still no answer, why has social spending went up when there has been huge social spending in the past.
It stands to reason if you bring people out of poverty then there should be less spending not more. LOL
Actually, I'd venture to say there are more poor people in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, LA than Alabama and Mississippi....Just due to population if nothing else. That is cities in Alabama and Mississippi...Lmao
Because social spending doesn't exist in vacuum. Other things in this world happen.
Except the feds aren't very good, nor are they very interest in, bringing people out of poverty. Thanks Republicans!
Did you say per capita, or did you say more poor people? Oh ok
Ha....your Democrats control the Senate right? Hmm..........they control appropriations right? And your Republican comment doesn't change the fact that the federal government hasn't made a dent in poverty as you claim by increasing social spending.
"Social spending doesn't exist in a vacuum" that pretty vague why don't you expound on the subject? Yes your right, other things do happen people see a system they can take advantage of and they do it.
What are you babbling about? Anything that matters that the dems put forth, baby bush vetoes.
Does that mean I don't think they should push the legislation at him anyway, uh yeah... but when we have a vetoproof majority and/or a dem in the white house, different ballgame.
You understand the distinction, yes?
Yes I do, but Bush hasn't cut social programs as Larkin claims. Social spending has increased not decreased.
Ha....your Democrats control the Senate right? Hmm..........they control appropriations right? And your Republican comment doesn't change the fact that the federal government hasn't made a dent in poverty as you claim by increasing social spending.
Did you say per capita, or did you say more poor people? Oh ok
Per capita doesn't vote people do...LOL
Yes I do, but Bush hasn't cut social programs as Larkin claims. Social spending has increased not decreased.
Its called the presidential veto.
And do you not understand the difference between social spending and money to decrease poverty?
Money to combat AIDS is social spending, but its sure not going to decrease poverty.
Nice deflection...but Bush hasn't slashed social programs as you suggest look at my previous post...as matter fact few have in say 60 years.
Is it your contention that spending on programs such as food stamps, welfare and other poverty laden programs haven't increased at the same rate?
We are talking about programs to address poverty. Care to tell me what combating AIDS has to do with that, or getting elderly folks flu shots?
Yes.
I said NEITHER, genius.
What I said clearly implied per capita. Richer states/areas/cities tend to vote Democrat. That is obviously per capita, not per person. Derr.
So your saying social entitlement spending isn't growing at an alarming rate?
And your saying that entitilement programs such as welfare, foodstamps and other poverty programs were slashed by Bush?
Oh ok go ahead and change your idotic statement. Sorry I usually read the words people write and try not to prejudge. But I guess you proved me wrong why I shouldn't do that.
Medicare is, but thats because healthcare costs are skyrocketing. We aren't getting any more, just paying more money.
Some where, yes.
I just want to make sure that's what your saying?
