Obama Starts His Poverty Tour

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Oh yay, a multi-billion dollar program by the feds to combat poverty. This is a new and original idea, and will surely be successful. It is in no way a program to buy votes. The extra tax burden from this will not create new and additional poverty that wasn't there before, nope.

Seriously though, they can pass all the programs they want, but they will never be a substitute for a booming economy with plenty of jobs for those who want them. If Obama were serious about helping the poor, he would push for a $6 billion dollar payroll tax cut for low income entry-level workers (preferably followed up with a $6B cut in spending somewhere).

 

[William Joyce]

Oh yay, a multi-billion dollar program by the feds to combat poverty. This is a new and original idea, and will surely be successful. It is in no way a program to buy votes. The extra tax burden from this will not create new and additional poverty that wasn't there before, nope.

lol.

I think the more we find out about what Obama Yo Mama and Pretty Boy Edwards have in mind as policy proposals, the more Hillary will pull ahead. Didn't PBE recently say there should be public funding for abortion?

 

[Nevadamedic]

lol.

I think the more we find out about what Obama Yo Mama and Pretty Boy Edwards have in mind as policy proposals, the more Hillary will pull ahead. Didn't PBE recently say there should be public funding for abortion?

Several times.

 

[red states rule]

It's not cheap. You have to figure he has agents on his family, agents at his house even when he isn't there, armored car an advance team. Yea taxpayers really eat it on this one..

Why would the candidates care - they are not paying for it

Much like Bill Clinton - the most expensive ex - President ever

He spends more money then Ted Kennedy at an open bar

Bill Clinton is by far our most expansive and expensive ex president. He had a $460,000 house rental bill paid for him and a $54,000 telephone bill last year. He must spend a lot of time gassing on the phone. Another expense he had is listed simply as "Other services: $146,000."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/09/60minutes/rooney/main1030408.shtml

Not to mention his SS protections, his health ins, and other expenses. The tax payers is continuing to take a hit from the Clintons

 

[Nevadamedic]

Why would the candidates care - they are not paying for it

Much like Bill Clinton - the most expensive ex - President ever

He spends more money then Ted Kennedy at an open bar

Bill Clinton is by far our most expansive and expensive ex president. He had a $460,000 house rental bill paid for him and a $54,000 telephone bill last year. He must spend a lot of time gassing on the phone. Another expense he had is listed simply as "Other services: $146,000."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/09/60minutes/rooney/main1030408.shtml

Not to mention his SS protections, his health ins, and other expenses. The tax payers is continuing to take a hit from the Clintons

He likes those 1-900 numbers...............

 

[Nevadamedic]

He could be spending all his time on the phone with Monica.

 

[red states rule]

where are the libs defending Bill?

 

[T-Bor]

That does not answer my question..And with your reply I assume you would say the same about the war on drugs right? Your excuse is that the left has spent too much money on the poor so abandon the project. Feel the same about the war on drugs? How about the war on Terror? Lots of money...zero improvement.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

That does not answer my question..And with your reply I assume you would say the same about the war on drugs right? Your excuse is that the left has spent too much money on the poor so abandon the project. Feel the same about the war on drugs? How about the war on Terror?

Yes, yes, and yes.

 

[roadhouse158]

There is no way to end poverty from a government standpoint. It's up to the individual living in poverty to have motivation and desire to improve themselves. Lets start with all the "minority" leaders that drill in the head of these "minorities" that they don't stand a chance in "white" America.....I see too many successful minorities to be statistically unimportant. The more help you give, the more that is expected. Name me one country where there is no poverty. Let me say one major country where there is no poverty. It's not going to happen. It is just a way to get votes. I can't believe people are still falling for all the same lines....I'm for ending poverty.....Well I'm for family values..Yeah...How about being for realistic....These are things government CAN'T fix.....Be for something that you can fix....like immigration, social security, armed forces, and upholding the real constitution. This in turn will give us citizens the greatest chance to succeed. We don't need a helping hand so much as a less invasive one.

 

[red states rule]

Oh yay, a multi-billion dollar program by the feds to combat poverty. This is a new and original idea, and will surely be successful. It is in no way a program to buy votes. The extra tax burden from this will not create new and additional poverty that wasn't there before, nope.

Seriously though, they can pass all the programs they want, but they will never be a substitute for a booming economy with plenty of jobs for those who want them. If Obama were serious about helping the poor, he would push for a $6 billion dollar payroll tax cut for low income entry-level workers (preferably followed up with a $6B cut in spending somewhere).

Libs have taken $9 trillion from the producers and handed it over to the nonproducers over the last 40 years to fight poverty

Yet, libs say it is not enough and we need to spend more

Liberal logic on display for all to see

 

[red states rule]

Obama might want to learn form this

John Edwards Poverty Tour Bombed? Shame, It's a 'Nation's Inability to be Moved'
By Tim Graham | July 27, 2007 - 06:49 ET
Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman lamented this week that the John Edwards poverty tour/publicity tour didn’t passionately grip America, that it did not immediately become a mythic event, like filthy-rich Bobby Kennedy's poverty tour in 1968. In a dramatic flourish, the young Harvard-educated whipper-snapper blames this tragedy on not-very-compassionate America:

"There is something tragic about Edwards's failure to break through. Today, 37 million Americans live below the poverty line, 12 million more than at the time of Kennedy's death. And yet Edwards's call of conscience has not resonated. By all rights, Edwards, the son of a millworker, should have an easier time talking about poverty than did Kennedy, the son of a millionaire. His difficulty speaks to the candidate's inability to connect. It also speaks to the nation's inability to be moved."


Time's Amy Sullivan demanded that reporters ignore the Edwards Haircut story -- as if the press hates the Democrats -- and Darman will be scolded for bringing up the Lavish Coif, but he only raises it to let Edwards defend himself, and then he also laments the press:

"Edwards says his notorious $400 haircut and his 28,000-square-foot house are the obsessions of the media, not "normal voters." (He does have a snarkier press corps than RFK. Not only did reporters not criticize the size of Kennedy's Virginia mansion, they wrote fawning prose about the senator in the hopes of scoring an invitation.)


Oh, those golden days of yore, when reporters were Kennedy’s smitten groupies! They still desire to be smitten groupies, but they have to acknowledge that liberal legends now get dented during the manufacturing process by an alternative conservative media.

It’s also a bit funny for Darman to recall how Bobby Kennedy looked on his poverty tour in 1968 – even though Darman (Harvard ‘03) was born in the 1980s. But check out how John Edwards bluntly tells the young Newsweek-ling that he apparently has no say in approving the talking points and strategic outbursts of Elizabeth Edwards:

Even the candidate's own wife, Elizabeth, managed to steal some of her husband's spotlight. On day two of the tour, Salon.com published an interview with Elizabeth in which she said front runner Hillary Clinton was not necessarily "as good an advocate for women" as Edwards. Edwards denied that his wife's comments detracted from his poverty message. "Anything can attract attention away," he said. "If Senator Obama went out and said something outrageous, that would attract attention away." But Barack Obama is a rival candidate, a NEWSWEEK reporter pointed out; the Edwardses were on the same team. Surely, husband and wife coordinated their messages. Edwards raised his eyebrows: "You think so?"

This raises the obvious question: precisely which Edwards is running for president? Which one is the chief executive of the campaign? I suspect Darman is wondering, that, too. Why else would he include the eyebrow-raising detail, when liberal reporters are trained early to paper over the embarrassing Democratic details?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...r-bombed-shame-its-nations-inability-be-moved