US is a 'world leader' in child poverty

If children have to starve or have malnutrition, so be it. As long as republicans can keep cutting taxes it's worth it. Rush limbaugh teaches a course on dumpster diving for poor kids of lazy bum parents by the way. Praise jesus and hallelujah.


Thing is, Repubs raise taxes on the working poor, the working class in order to lower taxes on the 1% and they're very open about it. There are RWs here who have said they're in favor of an end to the so-called "death tax" even though it applies only to the very wealthiest and costs them money.

That's what we're seeing more and more. The right takes away from the poor to give to the wealthy - that's a given. What is so stunning is that RWs vote to harm their own families and their children's, grand children's future.

Other countries, with much smaller tax bases, are able to feed their children.

Why can't the United States?

And why are so many against feeding children?
 
"America's poor suffer more from too much rather than too little."

I guess that's why they're called "poor", huh?

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
"America's poor suffer more from too much rather than too little."

I guess that's why their called "poor", huh?

:rolleyes:

exactly, America is so rich that even the poor have enough food to be fat. Americans poor are 10 times wealthier than Bulgaria's poor yet liberals still call them poor.
 
"America's poor suffer more from too much rather than too little."

I guess that's why their called "poor", huh?

:rolleyes:

exactly, America is so rich that even the poor have enough food to be fat. Americans poor are 10 times wealthier than Bulgaria's poor yet liberals still call them poor.


EXACTLY where, in the United States, is Bulgaria?

Post a link to your statistic proving that "Americans poor are 10 times wealthier than Bulgaria's poor".

No wonder you're called Special Ed Dear.
 
The Numbers Are Staggering: U.S. Is 'World Leader' in Child Poverty



By Paul Buchheit / AlterNet

April 13, 2015

America's wealth grew by 60 percent in the past six years, by over $30 trillion. In approximately the same time, the number of homeless children has also grown by 60 percent.

Financier and CEO Peter Schiff said, "People don’t go hungry in a capitalist economy." The 16 million kids on food stamps know what it's like to go hungry. Perhaps, some in Congress would say, those children should be working. "There is no such thing as a free lunch," insisted Georgia Representative Jack Kingston, even for schoolkids, who should be required to "sweep the floor of the cafeteria" (as theyactually do at a charter school in Texas).

$5 a Day for Food, But Congress Thought it was Too Much.

Nearly half of all food stamp recipients are children, and they averaged about $5 a day for their meals before the 2014 farm bill cut $8.6 billion (over the next ten years) from the food stamp program.

For Every 2 Homeless Children in 2006, There Are Now 3

On a typical frigid night in January, 138,000 children, according to the U.S. Department of Housing, were without a place to call home.

That's about the same number of households that have each increased their wealth by $10 million per yearsince the recession.

The US: Near the Bottom in Education, and Sinking

The U.S. ranks near the bottom of the developed worldin the percentage of 4-year-olds in early childhood education. Early education should be a primary goal for the future, as numerous studies have shown that pre-school helps all children to achieve more and earn more through adulthood, with the most disadvantaged benefiting the most. But we're going in the opposite direction. Head Start was recently hit with the worst cutbacks in its history.

Children's Rights? Not in the U.S.

It's hard to comprehend the thinking of people who cut funding for homeless and hungry children. It may be delusion about trickle-down, it may be indifference to poverty, it may be resentment toward people unable to "make it on their own."

The indifference and resentment and disdain for society reach around the globe. Only two nations still refuse to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: South Sudan and the United States.



Kingston isn't the only Republican to say kids should work in their schools. Remember when Newt Gingrich said they should clean the toilets at school?

I realize they're not fetuses but we cannot let the Republicans get away with cutting food stamps.
Republicans feel that hungry children work harder.
 
it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards


Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more
 
it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards


Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.

Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists
 
it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards


Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.


Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists

you certainly have

if the war on poverty has been successful

there would be less poverty not more

there is no other way to look at it

period
 
it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards


Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.


Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists

you certainly have

if the war on poverty has been successful

there would be less poverty not more

there is no other way to look at it

period

we know how to end poverty. China just ended 40% of the world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism.
 
it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards


Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.


Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists

you certainly have

if the war on poverty has been successful

there would be less poverty not more

there is no other way to look at it

period

we know how to end poverty. China just ended 40% of the world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism.


"China just ended 40% of the world's poverty .."

SpecialEdDear says that almost half of the entire world's poverty has been ended. SpecialEdDear just gets dummmmer and dummmmmer.

Or, will SpecialEdDear be posting PROOF that "China just ended 40% of the world's poverty"??
:link::link::link::link::link::link::link::link::link::link:
You're right however, that they used the Repub trick of calling it what it is NOT.

The pubs lie and you gullible RW sheeples just nod your heads up and down. Works every time.
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
 
PROOF that "China just ended 40% of the world's poverty"??
China accounts for 100% of the reduction in the number of the world's people living in poverty
In 2010 Professor Danny Quah, of the London School of Economics, noted: 'In the last 3 decades, China alone has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than the rest of the world combined. Indeed, China’s ($1/day) poverty reduction of 627 million from 1981 to 2005 exceeds the total global economy’s decline in its extremely poor from 1.9 billion to 1.4 billion over the same period.'


Does Luddy feel stupid and violent and liberal???
 
PROOF that "China just ended 40% of the world's poverty"??
China accounts for 100% of the reduction in the number of the world's people living in poverty
In 2010 Professor Danny Quah, of the London School of Economics, noted: 'In the last 3 decades, China alone has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than the rest of the world combined. Indeed, China’s ($1/day) poverty reduction of 627 million from 1981 to 2005 exceeds the total global economy’s decline in its extremely poor from 1.9 billion to 1.4 billion over the same period.'


Does Luddy feel stupid and violent and liberal???


First, your quote says "China". It does NOT say "the world".
Second, your link doesn't work

The material that you requested,

/~dquah/p/2010.05-Shifting_Distribution_GEA-DQ.pdf

could not be found.
 
PROOF that "China just ended 40% of the world's poverty"??
China accounts for 100% of the reduction in the number of the world's people living in poverty
In 2010 Professor Danny Quah, of the London School of Economics, noted: 'In the last 3 decades, China alone has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than the rest of the world combined. Indeed, China’s ($1/day) poverty reduction of 627 million from 1981 to 2005 exceeds the total global economy’s decline in its extremely poor from 1.9 billion to 1.4 billion over the same period.'


Does Luddy feel stupid and violent and liberal???


First, your quote says "China". It does NOT say "the world".
Second, your link doesn't work

The material that you requested,

/~dquah/p/2010.05-Shifting_Distribution_GEA-DQ.pdf

could not be found.

dear, why not tell us what % of the world's poverty you think China eliminated with Republican capitalism?? You would want to know more than anything -right?? Do you want to be on the side of impoverishing and slowly starving millions to death just becuase you are too lazy to do your research? Your bigotry rut is very comfortable isn't it!!
 
it is sad how much liberalism has added to poverty

give it enough years of and we will catch up to those standards


Yeah right.......yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare. Yeah, keep thinking the poor will become rich if we just stop making them dependent......like why don't we do that with corporations?

yet it is the Republicans who keep wanting to cut snaps (and have at times), and get rid of welfare.

thank you for verifying my point

the increase in snap and snap like programs

demonstrate that the war of poverty has been a complete failure

if had been successful there would be less snaps not more

I didn't verify your point.......you're failing to look at the whole picture. The reason for the increase has many factors. The characteristics of family structure has changed, where there are now more households headed by women......and conservatives support the idea that women do not need to receive equal pay for equal work.

-- 83 percent of which were headed by women -- had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.
Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates.


Also, there is the fact that prices continue to rise, more families fall into poverty because they hold low-income jobs and conservatives refuse to raise the minimum wage.

So, rather than celebrating your idea that taking welfare and snaps away would totally eliminate poverty, why don't you make yourself familiar with the factors that contribute to it.

Why Poverty Persists

you certainly have

if the war on poverty has been successful

there would be less poverty not more

there is no other way to look at it

period

we know how to end poverty. China just ended 40% of the world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism.



:rofl:
 

Forum List

Back
Top