Obama Starts His Poverty Tour

red states rule

Senior Member
May 30, 2006
16,011
573
48
First is was Pretty Boy Edwards on a poverty tour - now Sen Obama is starting his

Yes, more of your tax dollars will be spent on social programs - the same answer Dems have for all "problems"

Obama's $6 billion poverty platform
By Brian DeBose

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama yesterday introduced a broad agenda to combat urban poverty, which he said would cost "billions of dollars a year" but be funded by savings from ending the Iraq war.

The Illinois senator said he would spend about $6 billion annually, with his first task being to replicate in 20 cities such successful child and youth development programs as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York City and the Town Hall Education, Arts and Recreation Campus in the District, where he outlined his plan.

"I'll be honest, it can"t be done on the cheap. It will cost a few billion dollars a year," he said. "We won"t just spend the money because we can — every step these cities take will be evaluated, and if certain plans or programs aren"t working, we will stop them and try something else, but we will find the money to do this because we can't afford not to."

Mr. Obama not only gave voters some of his first detailed policy objectives, but he also effectively stole the thunder from former Sen. John Edwards, who yesterday concluded a trip mimicking Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 poverty tour in Prestonsburg, Ky., where the Kennedy tour ended.

Mr. Obama also invoked Mr. Kennedy's repeated journeys through the South and Appalachia as a kickoff for his remarks, asking the audience the same question that Mr. Kennedy posed 40 years ago: "How can a country like this allow it?"

But both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, who are running second and third in most Democratic presidential polls, have seized a jump on front-running Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has not announced any detailed anti-poverty proposals.

There was a stark contrast between the two speeches as Mr. Edwards' focused on poverty broadly, including rural and urban communities while Mr. Obama focused his initiative on cities, although he said he would "roll out" his rural agenda in the coming weeks.

"The reason I'm here is because I want America to remember what he did decades ago, and I want America to join us, all of us, to end the great work that Bobby Kennedy started," said Mr. Edwards of North Carolina in his speech.

for the complete article
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/107190083/1001
 
Do you have a problem with helping out the poor people of this country? And do you think anyone that tries to help the poor should live in a refrigerator box on the street as well? Just curious..
 
First is was Pretty Boy Edwards on a poverty tour - now Sen Obama is starting his

Yes, more of your tax dollars will be spent on social programs - the same answer Dems have for all "problems"

Obama's $6 billion poverty platform
By Brian DeBose

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama yesterday introduced a broad agenda to combat urban poverty, which he said would cost "billions of dollars a year" but be funded by savings from ending the Iraq war.

The Illinois senator said he would spend about $6 billion annually, with his first task being to replicate in 20 cities such successful child and youth development programs as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York City and the Town Hall Education, Arts and Recreation Campus in the District, where he outlined his plan.

"I'll be honest, it can"t be done on the cheap. It will cost a few billion dollars a year," he said. "We won"t just spend the money because we can — every step these cities take will be evaluated, and if certain plans or programs aren"t working, we will stop them and try something else, but we will find the money to do this because we can't afford not to."

Mr. Obama not only gave voters some of his first detailed policy objectives, but he also effectively stole the thunder from former Sen. John Edwards, who yesterday concluded a trip mimicking Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 poverty tour in Prestonsburg, Ky., where the Kennedy tour ended.

Mr. Obama also invoked Mr. Kennedy's repeated journeys through the South and Appalachia as a kickoff for his remarks, asking the audience the same question that Mr. Kennedy posed 40 years ago: "How can a country like this allow it?"

But both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, who are running second and third in most Democratic presidential polls, have seized a jump on front-running Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has not announced any detailed anti-poverty proposals.

There was a stark contrast between the two speeches as Mr. Edwards' focused on poverty broadly, including rural and urban communities while Mr. Obama focused his initiative on cities, although he said he would "roll out" his rural agenda in the coming weeks.

"The reason I'm here is because I want America to remember what he did decades ago, and I want America to join us, all of us, to end the great work that Bobby Kennedy started," said Mr. Edwards of North Carolina in his speech.

for the complete article
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/107190083/1001

What about Obama getting a full Secret Service Detail. He is already figuring out ways to waste tax payers money.
 
What about Obama getting a full Secret Service Detail. He is already figuring out ways to waste tax payers money.

You find it a waste to protect potential future presidents of the United States?

I thought you cared about protecting citizens of the US? But apparently you don't even care about protecting presidential candidates? Why is this?
 
You find it a waste to protect potential future presidents of the United States?

I thought you cared about protecting citizens of the US? But apparently you don't even care about protecting presidential candidates? Why is this?

If he is that scared of getting killed he shouldn't run. I am not opposed to any candidate getting a Secret Service Detail, but they should have to pay for it out of their campaign fund.
 
If he is that scared of getting killed he shouldn't run. I am not opposed to any candidate getting a Secret Service Detail, but they should have to pay for it out of their campaign fund.

It has nothing to do with him being scared or not. Politicians should be protected from being assassinated. These are the leaders of our country. Do you really want them to be easily killed off?
 
It has nothing to do with him being scared or not. Politicians should be protected from being assassinated. These are the leaders of our country. Do you really want them to be easily killed off?

This is a trick question, right? ;)
 

I say that about any Candidate Republican or Democrat. They are bringing it 50+ million for their campaigns they can easily pay for it, or another form of security. It is one thing that set's me off. I'm not upset with Hillary getting it as she is a former first lady and they are always guarded, but the rest have no reasonable excuse.
 
I say that about any Candidate Republican or Democrat. They are bringing it 50+ million for their campaigns they can easily pay for it, or another form of security. It is one thing that set's me off. I'm not upset with Hillary getting it as she is a former first lady and they are always guarded, but the rest have no reasonable excuse.


Im curious as to how much the detail actually costs, and if it could hinder a campaign.

Then again if you cant afford the SS, you probably dont need them.
 
Until they are elected they are just an average citizen and they can do exactly what an average citizen with millions of dollars do, hire Security. Donald Trump and Bill Gates do it, so why can't the candidates.

Most of them are Senators or other political representatives. And regardless I really don't want to make wealth a criteria for running any more than it already is. I also don't want to make it easier for them to get assassinated.
 
Most of them are Senators or other political representatives. And regardless I really don't want to make wealth a criteria for running any more than it already is. I also don't want to make it easier for them to get assassinated.

assasinated....the country loves him.....he is JFK with a tan
 
Do you have a problem with helping out the poor people of this country? And do you think anyone that tries to help the poor should live in a refrigerator box on the street as well? Just curious..

helping the poor and funding an underachieving lifestyle choice are two different things....

but everyone should help proportionally....helping the poor is not the exclusive responsibilty of any one socio economic strata....
 
Do you have a problem with helping out the poor people of this country? And do you think anyone that tries to help the poor should live in a refrigerator box on the street as well? Just curious..

After spending $9 trillion over the last 40 years "helping the poor" when will the left admit they lost their war on poverty
 
It has nothing to do with him being scared or not. Politicians should be protected from being assassinated. These are the leaders of our country. Do you really want them to be easily killed off?

Is that why some on the left have openly said they whould like to kill Pres Bush?
 
Im curious as to how much the detail actually costs, and if it could hinder a campaign.

Then again if you cant afford the SS, you probably dont need them.

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..
 
Most of them are Senators or other political representatives. And regardless I really don't want to make wealth a criteria for running any more than it already is. I also don't want to make it easier for them to get assassinated.

Your talking about someone who has raised of $50 million and keeps raising, he can afford to pay for the protection. I would say the same if a Republican candidate asked for it.
 
Do you have a problem with helping out the poor people of this country? And do you think anyone that tries to help the poor should live in a refrigerator box on the street as well? Just curious..

1. There is NOTHING stopping ANYONE from "helping out the poor people". You, T-Bor, could RIGHT NOW, give away everything you have to the poor, and it would be perfectly legal. No need for any laws, changes, or anything. So why don't you?

2. The working people in this country are the ones enlisted to "help" the poor, because they pay taxes. It's not voluntary. It's elitist rich assholes like Kennedy, Obama Yo Mama and Stretch Pelosi. They use GOVERNMENT FORCE to make regular working people give money to lazy blacks. BULLSHIT. Meanwhile, they wine and dine in style because they have their lawyers get them out of taxes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top