Why is the rightwing's argument against food stamps so 1 dimensional?

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Nov 10, 2011
31,719
12,454
1,560
Colorado
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service
Every time this subject comes up, and it comes up often, I always ask those against government assistance, to tell me what they'll do with the children, the elderly, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the Vets, and those unemployed, if they can't get food stamps. So far, no one has answered the question. Some say force them to get jobs. So, I ask where do they find jobs. Then I say that little children can't work, and if we cut off the parents, who feeds their children. And, to this day, no one has given an answer to those questions. Jerks want to cut assistance programs, but have no idea as to what to do with those left doing without. That shows the obvious mentality of those that hate the poor.

Then I ask why not first stop the care and support of illegal immigrants, stop foreign aid to foreign governments, stop subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, stop excessive military spending, stop supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, stop building mosques on foreign soil, and stop tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. And they give no answer. They want to cut the throats of American citizens, but never say a word about illegal immigrants, foreign governments, or other waste of taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Go figure.
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service
Every time this subject comes up, and it comes up often, I always ask those against government assistance, to tell me what they'll do with the children, the elderly, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the Vets, and those unemployed, if they can't get food stamps. So far, no one has answered the question. Some say force them to get jobs. So, I ask where do they find jobs. Then I say that little children can't work, and if we cut off the parents, who feeds their children. And, to this day, no one has given an answer to those questions. Jerks want to cut assistance programs, but have no idea as to what to do with those left doing without. That shows the obvious mentality of those that hate the poor.

Then I ask why not first stop the care and support of illegal immigrants, stop foreign aid to foreign governments, stop subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, stop excessive military spending, stop supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, stop building mosques on foreign soil, and stop tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. And they give no answer. They want to cut the throats of American citizens, but never say a word about illegal immigrants, foreign governments, or other waste of taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Go figure.
yeah nobody is talking about the illegal immigrant problem......noooooooooo .........
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service
Every time this subject comes up, and it comes up often, I always ask those against government assistance, to tell me what they'll do with the children, the elderly, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the Vets, and those unemployed, if they can't get food stamps. So far, no one has answered the question. Some say force them to get jobs. So, I ask where do they find jobs. Then I say that little children can't work, and if we cut off the parents, who feeds their children. And, to this day, no one has given an answer to those questions. Jerks want to cut assistance programs, but have no idea as to what to do with those left doing without. That shows the obvious mentality of those that hate the poor.

Then I ask why not first stop the care and support of illegal immigrants, stop foreign aid to foreign governments, stop subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, stop excessive military spending, stop supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, stop building mosques on foreign soil, and stop tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. And they give no answer. They want to cut the throats of American citizens, but never say a word about illegal immigrants, foreign governments, or other waste of taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Go figure.
I just don't understand why anyone not in the 1% would vote republican. It is absolutely mind boggling to me. They really have no idea what they are voting for.
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service
Every time this subject comes up, and it comes up often, I always ask those against government assistance, to tell me what they'll do with the children, the elderly, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the Vets, and those unemployed, if they can't get food stamps. So far, no one has answered the question. Some say force them to get jobs. So, I ask where do they find jobs. Then I say that little children can't work, and if we cut off the parents, who feeds their children. And, to this day, no one has given an answer to those questions. Jerks want to cut assistance programs, but have no idea as to what to do with those left doing without. That shows the obvious mentality of those that hate the poor.

Then I ask why not first stop the care and support of illegal immigrants, stop foreign aid to foreign governments, stop subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, stop excessive military spending, stop supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, stop building mosques on foreign soil, and stop tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. And they give no answer. They want to cut the throats of American citizens, but never say a word about illegal immigrants, foreign governments, or other waste of taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Go figure.
I just don't understand why anyone not in the 1% would vote republican. It is absolutely mind boggling to me. They really have no idea what they are voting for.
I don't understand why anyone would vote to elect, or to re-elect, a professional politician to serve in government. Their collective track record over the past 60 plus years suck. Also, I don't understand why anyone would label themselves as Republican or Democrat, and not just label themselves as Americans for America.
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service

We need to aggressive deport our Progressives to countries more to their liking, Socialist countries that eliminate their political opposition

Adios, scumbags!
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?
You're missing the point. I don't believe that food stamps is a long term solution. It's an emergency measure for the very poor. I'm all for raising the minimum wage. That would drastically reduce food stamps participants you know that right?
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service

We need to aggressive deport our Progressives to countries more to their liking, Socialist countries that eliminate their political opposition

Adios, scumbags!
So as usual you have nothing of substance to add to this forum.
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service

We need to aggressive deport our Progressives to countries more to their liking, Socialist countries that eliminate their political opposition

Adios, scumbags!
So as usual you have nothing of substance to add to this forum.

Just that you should hop an inner tube to Fidel if you hate it here so much
 
83% of food stamps funding goes to households with at least 1 dependent living there. The average person on food stamps gets $133 per month and the average income of a household on food stamps is about $733 per MONTH. When we are talking about people on food stamps, we are talking about people who are dirt poor. The eligibility of this program, contrary to popular belief, is very narrow.

Now when you bring up the well being of children on food stamps, conservatives will say "well the mother should have kept her legs closed derp derp derp!"

While it can be agreed that the mother shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support it doesn't change the fact that kids exist now does it? What is this poverty stricken mother supposed to do with these kids? Give them to the state? Like it or not, these kids should still need to be supported right? They need nutritious food that is critical to their development. That is why the mother needs food stamps.

Seriously if you are so concerned about mothers avoiding having kids they can't afford, then maybe you should re think your views on abortion. Of course this problem will only get worse because of the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 97% of what the program does is provide reproductive support to women such as birth control. 3% goes to abortion, which is obviously a good alternative to raising kids you can't support.

Republicans only seek to destroy a program that not only helps kids, it helps veterans. They of course have no problem with providing subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Why would anyone vote for these clowns?

Facts About SNAP | Food and Nutrition Service

We need to aggressive deport our Progressives to countries more to their liking, Socialist countries that eliminate their political opposition

Adios, scumbags!
So as usual you have nothing of substance to add to this forum.

Just that you should hop an inner tube to Fidel if you hate it here so much
There's many great things about America, but unfortunately there are many bad things too. I would rather focus on fixing the bad stuff.
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?


50 million on food stamps, and there are currently 93 million Americans out of the labor force. With a population of roughly 318,000,000, that's almost 1/3 of the people in this country who could work, but aren't. The poverty rate is also risen to 50 million people. These figures have dramatically increased since Obama was sworn in and during his two terms alone, he has increased the national debt more than all previous Presidents put together.

Who the hell is gonna pay for all this?
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?


50 million on food stamps, and there are currently 93 million Americans out of the labor force. With a population of roughly 318,000,000, that's almost 1/3 of the people in this country who could work, but aren't. The poverty rate is also risen to 50 million people. These figures have dramatically increased since Obama was sworn in and during his two terms alone, he has increased the national debt more than all previous Presidents put together.

Who the hell is gonna pay for all this?
Obama inherited a recession whether you like it or not. That recession started 4 months before he was sworn in. Obviously he was going to preside over the worst of it. But guess what? That recession ended 6 months into his first term and we have had consistent job growth ever since.

Obama did nothing to make the poor more poor. He tried to raise the minimum wage which would have lifted 18 million people out of poverty (at 10.10 per hour.)
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?


50 million on food stamps, and there are currently 93 million Americans out of the labor force. With a population of roughly 318,000,000, that's almost 1/3 of the people in this country who could work, but aren't. The poverty rate is also risen to 50 million people. These figures have dramatically increased since Obama was sworn in and during his two terms alone, he has increased the national debt more than all previous Presidents put together.

Who the hell is gonna pay for all this?
Obama inherited a recession whether you like it or not. That recession started 4 months before he was sworn in. Obviously he was going to preside over the worst of it. But guess what? That recession ended 6 months into his first term and we have had consistent job growth ever since.

Obama did nothing to make the poor more poor. He tried to raise the minimum wage which would have lifted 18 million people out of poverty (at 10.10 per hour.)
If that were true the numbers wouldnt be what they are.
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?


50 million on food stamps, and there are currently 93 million Americans out of the labor force. With a population of roughly 318,000,000, that's almost 1/3 of the people in this country who could work, but aren't. The poverty rate is also risen to 50 million people. These figures have dramatically increased since Obama was sworn in and during his two terms alone, he has increased the national debt more than all previous Presidents put together.

Who the hell is gonna pay for all this?
Obama inherited a recession whether you like it or not. That recession started 4 months before he was sworn in. Obviously he was going to preside over the worst of it. But guess what? That recession ended 6 months into his first term and we have had consistent job growth ever since.

Obama did nothing to make the poor more poor. He tried to raise the minimum wage which would have lifted 18 million people out of poverty (at 10.10 per hour.)

Ni66er please! Here it is eight years into Obama's presidency and you people are still blaming GW for Obama's failures. There has not been consistent job growth, only a change in which the Bureau of Labor calculates the statistics. The "recession" as you call it, was the housing and mortgage crisis crash, which was caused by the Democrats in the first place. They are the ones who made it easy for low-income people to purchase houses, even though everyone knew they couldn't pay for them.

Everything Obama has done has exacerbated the failing economy. The only people who have done well during his presidency are the upper-income and those involved in Wall Street. They have really made out, thanks to the FED's quantitative easing. Given the fibrillation the stock market went through last week, even you should be able to figure out there's something wrong.

And raising the minimum wage is only going to make things worse. Who's going to pay for these raises? The employers? The consumers? Are all these people who get a raise going to increase their output, just because they got a raise? Are employers going to cut back on their hours just so they can stay in business?

And why has the price of gasoline stayed high the entire time Obama was in office? I seem to remember that it was down around $1.70 per gallon when GW left office.
 
Right wingers are going to drown these puppies too.....

9324696606_b7deb93cdb_z.jpg


those mean right wingers!
So in other words you have no actual argument to put forth? Trust me I noticed the omission.

What is there to argue? The number of families on food stamps has grown from approx. 17 million to approx. 50 million in 10 years. When will you be happy? When every family in America is on food stamps?


50 million on food stamps, and there are currently 93 million Americans out of the labor force. With a population of roughly 318,000,000, that's almost 1/3 of the people in this country who could work, but aren't. The poverty rate is also risen to 50 million people. These figures have dramatically increased since Obama was sworn in and during his two terms alone, he has increased the national debt more than all previous Presidents put together.

Who the hell is gonna pay for all this?
Obama inherited a recession whether you like it or not. That recession started 4 months before he was sworn in. Obviously he was going to preside over the worst of it. But guess what? That recession ended 6 months into his first term and we have had consistent job growth ever since.

Obama did nothing to make the poor more poor. He tried to raise the minimum wage which would have lifted 18 million people out of poverty (at 10.10 per hour.)

Ni66er please! Here it is eight years into Obama's presidency and you people are still blaming GW for Obama's failures. There has not been consistent job growth, only a change in which the Bureau of Labor calculates the statistics. The "recession" as you call it, was the housing and mortgage crisis crash, which was caused by the Democrats in the first place. They are the ones who made it easy for low-income people to purchase houses, even though everyone knew they couldn't pay for them.

Everything Obama has done has exacerbated the failing economy. The only people who have done well during his presidency are the upper-income and those involved in Wall Street. They have really made out, thanks to the FED's quantitative easing. Given the fibrillation the stock market went through last week, even you should be able to figure out there's something wrong.

And raising the minimum wage is only going to make things worse. Who's going to pay for these raises? The employers? The consumers? Are all these people who get a raise going to increase their output, just because they got a raise? Are employers going to cut back on their hours just so they can stay in business?
For Christ's sakes of enough of this "quit blaming Bush bullshit". I am talking about history here. History provides context for today. I'm not even necessarily blaming Bush for that recession. Did you notice how I didn't mention his name? You did that, not me. Regardless of who started the recession, it still happened 4 months before Obama came to office. We lost 8 million private jobs to that recession. Don't you think that is going to have lasting effects into his presidency that he has no control over?

And yes, there has been consistent job growth. That's a fact. It's the best job growth we have had since 1999. The BLS has nothing to do with Obama you know that right?

Right I get it. The BLS doesn't include those working part time blah blah blah. Their standards were no different before Obama became president. Job growth under Bush was pathetic. Full time job growth under Obama was still better than it was under Bush. The reason why people are discouraged from finding jobs is because wages are low. Raising the minimum wage would fix that.

It's so fucking stupid for you to put all the blame on the dems for the recession while simultaneously criticizing me for bringing up the timeline of the recession occurring in Bush's final months. It wasn't the dems' fault. I don't even blame Bush. It was combination of a variety of factors that led to the recession. It was a lack of proper financial regulation. Blaming one type of politicians for such a complex issue is so simple minded. You are just citing a report created by REPUBLICANS. How about you try listening to actual independent expert economists instead

Tell me what policies of Obama have made the poor more poor? You have no earthly idea. Why? Because the income gap has been widening for decades. This has nothing to do with Obama's policies.

The negative effects of raising the minimum wage depend on how high you raise it. In fact, 600 economists signed a letter to congress in support of raising the minimum wage to 10.10 per hour. They are smarter than you. Get over it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top