Progressive Economics = Poverty

[midcan5]

Harding Coolidge Hoover = Great Depression

Reagan Bush = S&L Bailout

Reagan Bush Clinton Bush = Great Recession

Debt, poverty, and job loss, all occurred under republican presidencies. Add mismanaged wars to the republican resume as well.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ = America's Golden Age.

Enough said.



I am editing this based on history and recent developments. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Harding Coolidge Hoover = Great Depression

Reagan Bush = S&L Bailout

Reagan Bush Clinton Bush = Great Recession

Debt, poverty, and job loss, all occurred under republican presidencies. Add mismanaged wars to the republican resume as well.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ = America's Golden Age.

Enough said.

I am editing this based on history and recent developments. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

See how important their media monopoly was to them? Do you see what pathological liars Progressive are?

Black= White.


Harding Coolidge dropped unemployment from 12 to 4% in 18 months,

Hoover/FDR Depression was started by the Fed and didn't end until Hitler conquered France

Obama deficits> any Reagan budget.

Obama = 84% real employment, record debt, deficits and poverty and our first every credit downgrade. But he's asking for one more term so he can "finish the job"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes the "poor" in this country are living above the "global" middle class. $18,000 + versus $2000+, and the "leaders" (intellectual elites that want power) are telling us that we need to be more fair. I guess that means the poor in this country needs to be "poorer", so that we can get with the global community.

The poor in this country range from the outright destitute and homeless to those who fit your one fits all mold. Be more careful, please.

 

[Dragon]

There was a discussion on this thread a while back about "the poor" and how they are doing better than the so-called middle class in third-world countries. (Actually that's not true; what is true, though, is that the poor here are doing a lot better than the poor in poor countries. Just a fact.)

Let's be clear on something. The result of the return to conservative economics in the 1980s has not been a serious decline in the well-being of the poor. The huge gains of the rich over the past 30 years have not come at the expense of the poor. (I mean, how much do poor people have to steal? Hardly a logical target . . .)

It's not the poor but the middle class that have borne the brunt of our economic policies.

Over the past 30 years, the jobs that used to pay a middle-class income to high-school graduates have mostly disappeared, being replaced by service jobs that are for the most part non-union and so pay less. There are now no avenues to a middle-class income that don't require serious training, and only limited avenues that do require advanced education.

This is really not about the poor. It's about the decline of the middle class, something that is the inevitable consequence of having an increasing share of national income going to the top.

 

[Neubarth]

Harding Coolidge Hoover = Great Depression

Reagan Bush = S&L Bailout

Reagan Bush Clinton Bush = Great Recession

Debt, poverty, and job loss, all occurred under republican presidencies. Add mismanaged wars to the republican resume as well.

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ = America's Golden Age.

Enough said.

I am editing this based on history and recent developments. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

Though I totally agree with your analysis above, I would not give FDR that much credit for America's Golden Age. The FDR administration accidentally hit upon how to use the FED. Unfortunately because it was an accident he did not capitalize on it when it should have most obvious to him.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Harding Coolidge Hoover = Great Depression

Actually 100% of FDR's 3 terms were the Great Depression and World War 2.

Perhaps if Obama can prolong this recession for 10 years that culminate in World War he too will be a great liberal hero?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The FDR administration accidentally hit upon how to use the FED.

so by hitting on how to use the Fed, FDR prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years that culminated in a World War that killed 60 million?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There was a discussion on this thread a while back about "the poor" and how they are doing better than the so-called middle class in third-world countries..

Actually our poor do better than the middle class in Europe. France for example has the percapita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state.

Robert Rector: The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 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.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical 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; 31 percent own two or more cars.

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

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

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

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

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. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is really not about the poor. It's about the decline of the middle class, something that is the inevitable consequence of having an increasing share of national income going to the top.

that assumes its a zero sum game when its obviously not. 100 years ago all classes were far poorer than today. Would you have wanted to divide up the income then or promote a system wherein all classes would get far more income so everyone could be a lot richer?.

Also, 44 million Americans flew in jet planes for the holidays. Sounds like there is still a huge wealthy middle class despite the liberal recession, liberal unions, liberal open borders, liberal national debt and sky high liberal taxes all of which are not helping the middle class at all.

 

[logical4u]

There was a discussion on this thread a while back about "the poor" and how they are doing better than the so-called middle class in third-world countries. (Actually that's not true; what is true, though, is that the poor here are doing a lot better than the poor in poor countries. Just a fact.)

Let's be clear on something. The result of the return to conservative economics in the 1980s has not been a serious decline in the well-being of the poor. The huge gains of the rich over the past 30 years have not come at the expense of the poor. (I mean, how much do poor people have to steal? Hardly a logical target . . .)

It's not the poor but the middle class that have borne the brunt of our economic policies.

Over the past 30 years, the jobs that used to pay a middle-class income to high-school graduates have mostly disappeared, being replaced by service jobs that are for the most part non-union and so pay less. There are now no avenues to a middle-class income that don't require serious training, and only limited avenues that do require advanced education.

This is really not about the poor. It's about the decline of the middle class, something that is the inevitable consequence of having an increasing share of national income going to the top.

As a witness to those years, what I saw was democrat policies (cumbersome regulations, unreasonable time-frames, etc) responsible for closing down industry in this country (the source of the middle-class income). I watched the most idustrious parts of the nation be converted to the "rust belt", where many communities have never recovered. I watched the "government leaders" inform people that their skills were not marketable and they had to "re-educate" themselves (thru the corrupt government college coordination) to take lower paying jobs.
I am currently watching the same "leadership" destroy the energy sources that keep this country moving (no energy, get slaves!). I have listened to people that have been "brain-washed" by political propoganda and the press: this country is sooo dirty [obviously they don't think about when many people up north burned coal in their homes (unfiltered or scrubbed!), used outhouses (they were cleaned every flood), used wells instead of public water systems, and many communities had industries that started in remote places(so they didn't have 'keep it clean') where villages and towns built around the company's industry in the middle of the pollution (some imported labor and kept them as virtual slaves in "mill towns"), when hospitals were dependent on those industry owners as benefactors to keep the hospital running].
What the "leaders" appear to be doing IMHO is taking this country backwards to a time without cheap energy where slave labor and filth were commonplace and the "global norm". It is being done, slowly, so that most citizens aren't aware, but it is happening. Once life is no longer convenient, citizens will sign their lives away for anything resembling "ease". Part of this is because this "country" no longer acknowledges the Lord as being more powerful than "man". We ignore His teachings and His wisdom at our own folly.
Folly is probably the best word I could use for people that do not look at the whole of all canidates running. Their belief that they answer to a Being greater than them is a very good indicator of what type of "leader" they will be, but many in this country do not want to know the most basic character indicator, and try to silence any that want that information. Yes there is a decline of the middle class, and that can be traced directly to the policies of the people that have been in charge of government (majority of the time) for the last sixty + years, the democrats!

 

[JakeStarkey]

EdwardBaiamonte has done nothing more than give old, tired, and inaccurate far right talking points here.

No, the poor here do not do as well as the European middle class.

Yes, the middle class wealth has been transferred to the wealthy.

Edward, you have a right to your opinions but not to your own facts and definitions.

 

[paulitician]

Socialism/Communism/Progressivism will only result in massive shared poverty. It will never result in their 'Shared Wealth' fairy tale fantasy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Socialism/Communism/Progressivism will only result in massive shared poverty. It will never result in their 'Shared Wealth' fairy tale fantasy.

And that is not what either Dem or GOP are doing.

 

[Dragon]

Socialism/Communism/Progressivism will only result in massive shared poverty. It will never result in their 'Shared Wealth' fairy tale fantasy.

It did in the decades from 1940 to 1980. It still does in most advanced economies. You are demonstrably wrong. Do you have any respect for facts and reality at all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism/Communism/Progressivism will only result in massive shared poverty. It will never result in their 'Shared Wealth' fairy tale fantasy.

It did in the decades from 1940 to 1980. It still does in most advanced economies. You are demonstrably wrong. Do you have any respect for facts and reality at all?

Norway! in 5, 4 3, 2....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Socialism/Communism/Progressivism will only result in massive shared poverty. It will never result in their 'Shared Wealth' fairy tale fantasy.

It did in the decades from 1940 to 1980. It still does in most advanced economies. You are demonstrably wrong. Do you have any respect for facts and reality at all?

Norway! in 5, 4 3, 2....

Check your facts, Frank.

Oh, wait: you never worry about such things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It did in the decades from 1940 to 1980. It still does in most advanced economies. You are demonstrably wrong. Do you have any respect for facts and reality at all?

Norway! in 5, 4 3, 2....

Check your facts, Frank.

Oh, wait: you never worry about such things.

Jake <3 Obama.

Fact.

 

[Dragon]

I didn't comment on Frank's post this time because, although I'm sure he meant to be ironic, he implied a fact: Norway's per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S. Their economy is doing much better than ours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Norway! in 5, 4 3, 2....

Check your facts, Frank.

Oh, wait: you never worry about such things.

Jake <3 Obama.

Fact.

Frank < Hitler, fact.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

EdwardBaiamonte has done nothing more than give old, tired, and inaccurate far right talking points here.

No, the poor here do not do as well as the European middle class.

Yes, the middle class wealth has been transferred to the wealthy.

Edward, you have a right to your opinions but not to your own facts and definitions.

if true of course you would not be so afraid to say what facts are mistaken and why.