- Aug 23, 2009
- 22,543
- 10,450
- 950
^ ^
Same shit, different day.
Eddy boy, you need some new material.
Same shit, different day.
Eddy boy, you need some new material.
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.
^ ^
Same shit, different day.
Eddy boy, you need some new material.
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,?
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 their called "poor", huh?
"America's poor suffer more from too much rather than too little."
I guess that's why their called "poor", huh?
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.
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?
Thing is, Repubs raise taxes on the working poor,?
100% stupid and liberal as always. Working poor pay no taxes, in fact all of them get the EITC. They pay no taxes and still get a refund!!
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
Thing is, Repubs raise taxes on the working poor,?
100% stupid and liberal as always. Working poor pay no taxes, in fact all of them get the EITC. They pay no taxes and still get a refund!!
it is not a refund
it is a hand out
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 accounts for 100% of the reduction in the number of the world's people living in povertyPROOF 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 povertyPROOF that "China just ended 40% of the world's 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???
China accounts for 100% of the reduction in the number of the world's people living in povertyPROOF that "China just ended 40% of the world's 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.
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.