Poverty Reaches 50 Year Record Under Obama...

[Avorysuds]

You don't care as you'd kill entire sectors of our economy. I love and respect the private sector but you're talking mind blowing numbers of people you want to fire.

Public school teachers?
Paid fire fighters
Police
Fda
Nasa
NSA-I'll agree that they shouldn't be spying on the American people, but they should be spying on our enemies.
CIA
FBI
Epa-needed. We can debate the depth of their mission.
Post office
Nws
noaa
nhc
USGS
etc thousands of others

Some of these do great things to keep this nation number one! From keeping our food clean so we don't have shitty food like Mexico to warning us of extreme weather. Believe it or not a modern society needs organizions that work for the people and not just for profit.

I love the private sector enough where I'd agree that a lot of the stuff can be done from their and for less.

Many of these - school teachers, fire fighters, police, etc. - can be privatized. Less cost, more efficiency. How obviously simple.

Right, if you can't afford it, your house burns to the ground. Great idea! School is only for the kids who have parents with money. Sounds like a utopia!

I believe we should have a mix of Government and privet when it comes to education. However all monies, power and choices are made at a local level by the tax payers (only those that pay taxes), no federal.

Privet does a way better job for far less money. In fact Privet sector does so much better of a job that public education acts more as a dumbing down of society than an education.

If an when I have a kid I will do everything possible to keep them out of public school. School has becomes a daycare where kids plan on who they want/can fuck and what drugs they want to be doing. I was with a girl in HS that had a 4.8 GPA who was doing coke all the time to do massive amounts of homework. She did many other drugs as well, with friends to party... I left her as I never did any drugs.

 

[RDD_1210]

Is there any doubt progressive policies done by the left and right have done anything but fail?

I can point to plenty of examples of countries with policies that are much more progressive than anything we have here and are seeing great success.

But we both know you can't point to conservative policies showing success anywhere in the world. I mean, unless you consider Iran and Pakistan a rousing success.

I'd like to see his answer to this.

He won't answer. They never do. They live in a fantasy world that has no basis in the world we actually live in.

 

[norwegen]

You don't care as you'd kill entire sectors of our economy. I love and respect the private sector but you're talking mind blowing numbers of people you want to fire.

Public school teachers?
Paid fire fighters
Police
Fda
Nasa
NSA-I'll agree that they shouldn't be spying on the American people, but they should be spying on our enemies.
CIA
FBI
Epa-needed. We can debate the depth of their mission.
Post office
Nws
noaa
nhc
USGS
etc thousands of others

Some of these do great things to keep this nation number one! From keeping our food clean so we don't have shitty food like Mexico to warning us of extreme weather. Believe it or not a modern society needs organizions that work for the people and not just for profit.

I love the private sector enough where I'd agree that a lot of the stuff can be done from their and for less.

Many of these - school teachers, fire fighters, police, etc. - can be privatized. Less cost, more efficiency. How obviously simple.

Right, if you can't afford it, your house burns to the ground. Great idea! School is only for the kids who have parents with money. Sounds like a utopia!

In the past, several cities have contracted with private fire fighting companies. They serve the same areas of town as any government operation does.

If you were one of those poor kids with a government education, we might have an ointment for you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I can point to plenty of examples of countries with policies that are much more progressive than anything we have here and are seeing great success.

But we both know you can't point to conservative policies showing success anywhere in the world. I mean, unless you consider Iran and Pakistan a rousing success.

I'd like to see his answer to this.

He won't answer. They never do. They live in a fantasy world that has no basis in the world we actually live in.

Give them a chance. If theres an example I'm sure they'll be more than happy to shove it in your face

 

[RDD_1210]

Many of these - school teachers, fire fighters, police, etc. - can be privatized. Less cost, more efficiency. How obviously simple.

Right, if you can't afford it, your house burns to the ground. Great idea! School is only for the kids who have parents with money. Sounds like a utopia!

I believe we should have a mix of Government and privet when it comes to education. However all monies, power and choices are made at a local level by the tax payers (only those that pay taxes), no federal.

Privet does a way better job for far less money. In fact Privet sector does so much better of a job that public education acts more as a dumbing down of society than an education.

If an when I have a kid I will do everything possible to keep them out of public school. School has becomes a daycare where kids plan on who they want/can fuck and what drugs they want to be doing. I was with a girl in HS that had a 4.8 GPA who was doing coke all the time to do massive amounts of homework. She did many other drugs as well, with friends to party... I left her as I never did any drugs.

Let me ask you this. Did you receive your education at a public or privet school?

 

[RDD_1210]

Many of these - school teachers, fire fighters, police, etc. - can be privatized. Less cost, more efficiency. How obviously simple.

Right, if you can't afford it, your house burns to the ground. Great idea! School is only for the kids who have parents with money. Sounds like a utopia!

In the past, several cities have contracted with private fire fighting companies. They serve the same areas of town as any government operation does.

If you were one of those poor kids with a government education, we might have an ointment for you.

Cops should only protect the people who can afford to pay their salaries as well.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'd like to see his answer to this.

He won't answer. They never do. They live in a fantasy world that has no basis in the world we actually live in.

Give them a chance. If theres an example I'm sure they'll be more than happy to shove it in your face

Oh I'd love to hear an example. But I've asked this same question in multiple threads and the best answer I have heard is Singapore. Seriously.

 

[norwegen]

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.

Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.

“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said.
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.

President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”...

Read more: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

I'm glad you started this thread. This only reinforces the fact that the best way to get people out of poverty is by removing all safety nets and assistance from them. That will create an automatic path straight to riches!

Or maybe we can stay the course we're on, and keep growing poverty?

 

[paulitician]

How much blame does the President deserve? Take your Partisan caps off for a minute and answer honestly. Forget the 'D' & 'R' thing for a bit.

 

[norwegen]

Right, if you can't afford it, your house burns to the ground. Great idea! School is only for the kids who have parents with money. Sounds like a utopia!

In the past, several cities have contracted with private fire fighting companies. They serve the same areas of town as any government operation does.

If you were one of those poor kids with a government education, we might have an ointment for you.

Cops should only protect the people who can afford to pay their salaries as well.

You still have no idea how these private companies contract with cities, do you?

 

[The T]

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.

Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.

“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said.
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.

President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”...

Read more: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record - Washington Times
Follow us: @Washtimes on Twitter
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

I'm glad you started this thread. This only reinforces the fact that the best way to get people out of poverty is by removing all safety nets and assistance from them. That will create an automatic path straight to riches!

Or maybe we can stay the course we're on, and keep growing poverty?

And listen to the same complaints ad nauseum. Time to remove the net. It isn't working. Time to end government Socialist meddling.

 

[zeke]

Hey Pauli, what the hell is wrong with a declining standard of living? As you right wing whack jobs repeatedly say, there is no poor people in America. How can you be poor if you have a cell phone? And a big screen with cable. And a refrigerator. Right?
And according to you, Obama gave EVERYBODY a cell phone plus all those other things he gave away.

And IF you want to reduce the numbers of people living in what is now defined as "poverty", all you gotta do is reduce the income level we use that defines poverty.

Like, anyone making over 10 thousand dollars a year is considered middle class.

Problem solved. Poverty just got reduced dramatically.

With the way you right wingers hate poor people, I can't fucking believe that you didn't come up with this solution.

Or are you thinking that all those millions of jobs that got shipped overseas under a variety of Presidents are coming back? Or maybe you want Obama to give more money to high tech start ups? No, you wouldn't want to do that. How about giving raises to the working poor to bring them above the poverty level? Fuck that. Infrastructure? Hell no.

How about we let the ultra rich trickle on our heads some more. That worked so well. Or if we would just reduce the taxes on the ultra wealthy, they will share? No that ain't happening.

That just about brings us back to my first suggestion. Anyone making over 10k a year is middle class.
Problem solved.

BTW, you really think people on here believe that you give a flying fuck about people in poverty? LMAO.

You just want to try and bash Obama over it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.

Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.

“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said.
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.

President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”...

Read more: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

I'm glad you started this thread. This only reinforces the fact that the best way to get people out of poverty is by removing all safety nets and assistance from them. That will create an automatic path straight to riches!

Or maybe we can stay the course we're on, and keep growing poverty?

No, we can't stay the course. We need to stop the coddling of the rich and big business through campaign donations and rigging of legislation to allow the rich to get richer at the expense of a dwindling middle class. Great point! Glad you brought it up.

 

[Avorysuds]

Is there any doubt progressive policies done by the left and right have done anything but fail?

I can point to plenty of examples of countries with policies that are much more progressive than anything we have here and are seeing great success.

But we both know you can't point to conservative policies showing success anywhere in the world. I mean, unless you consider Iran and Pakistan a rousing success.

You listed 2 heavily dictatorial countries as "conservative?" Yeah, great start....

You can't list countries that are successful. The countries you list are highly dependent on things like sucking the life out of the oil industry in their country.... And if an alternate fuel/energy source ever comes around those couturiers would be impoverished nearly overnight. The main country you would prolly list receives 30% of all of it's revenues to the government off oil alone. kinda scary way to live, you know 100% dependent on a finite resource that politicians want to tax the fuck out of.... Wonder how badly that country wants to be taxed.


The US is the best example as you well know. As we have become more progressive we have slowly fallen into the trap of funds not able to keep up with services. Thus services like education erode.

It's predictable, and those predicting it have been spot on.... So it's interesting to watch people deny answers from those that were correct. Progressive policies will always bankrupt a nation, done.

 

[paulitician]

Hey Pauli, what the hell is wrong with a declining standard of living? As you right wing whack jobs repeatedly say, there is no poor people in America. How can you be poor if you have a cell phone? And a big screen with cable. And a refrigerator. Right?
And according to you, Obama gave EVERYBODY a cell phone plus all those other things he gave away.

And IF you want to reduce the numbers of people living in what is now defined as "poverty", all you gotta do is reduce the income level we use that defines poverty.

Like, anyone making over 10 thousand dollars a year is considered middle class.

Problem solved. Poverty just got reduced dramatically.

With the way you right wingers hate poor people, I can't fucking believe that you didn't come up with this solution.

Or are you thinking that all those millions of jobs that got shipped overseas under a variety of Presidents are coming back? Or maybe you want Obama to give more money to high tech start ups? No, you wouldn't want to do that. How about giving raises to the working poor to bring them above the poverty level? Fuck that. Infrastructure? Hell no.

How about we let the ultra rich trickle on our heads some more. That worked so well. Or if we would just reduce the taxes on the ultra wealthy, they will share? No that ain't happening.

That just about brings us back to my first suggestion. Anyone making over 10k a year is middle class.
Problem solved.

BTW, you really think people on here believe that you give a flying fuck about people in poverty? LMAO.

You just want to try and bash Obama over it.

That's just plain stupid. Calm down and try again.

 

[Pennywise]

I was not a Romney fan, but were he president today, all this class warfare shit would have been dumped in the toilet and there would have been major efforts to actually improve the business climate in America, and right now we would heading toward a new economic boom.

The Obama malaise makes me long for Carter. It's unnecessary and depressing for this country to remain on the skids. Disgusting.

 

[RDD_1210]

How much blame does the President deserve? Take your Partisan caps off for a minute and answer honestly. Forget the 'D' & 'R' thing for a bit.

The president could do a lot more, that's for sure. But he's bought off by big business and corporate interests just like pretty much every other Washington politician.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm glad you started this thread. This only reinforces the fact that the best way to get people out of poverty is by removing all safety nets and assistance from them. That will create an automatic path straight to riches!

Or maybe we can stay the course we're on, and keep growing poverty?

No, we can't stay the course. We need to stop the coddling of the rich and big business through campaign donations and rigging of legislation to allow the rich to get richer at the expense of a dwindling middle class. Great point! Glad you brought it up.

I agree, so lets stop letting the Government "stimulate" the economy by taking tax dollars, mix it with trillions of new printed dollars and handing it to the rich to lend to the poor or "invest" in stocks.

You should write Obama right away! Or how the fuck else to you think the rich are getting richer? Remember, only a select rich are getting richer exponentially. The ones attached to Government.

 

[The T]

How much blame does the President deserve? Take your Partisan caps off for a minute and answer honestly. Forget the 'D' & 'R' thing for a bit.

The president could do a lot more, that's for sure. But he's bought off by big business and corporate interests just like pretty much every other Washington politician.

Nice admission. Does that include Obama?

 

[koshergrl]

Hey Pauli, what the hell is wrong with a declining standard of living? As you right wing whack jobs repeatedly say, there is no poor people in America. How can you be poor if you have a cell phone? And a big screen with cable. And a refrigerator. Right?
And according to you, Obama gave EVERYBODY a cell phone plus all those other things he gave away.

And IF you want to reduce the numbers of people living in what is now defined as "poverty", all you gotta do is reduce the income level we use that defines poverty.

Like, anyone making over 10 thousand dollars a year is considered middle class.

Problem solved. Poverty just got reduced dramatically.

With the way you right wingers hate poor people, I can't fucking believe that you didn't come up with this solution.

Or are you thinking that all those millions of jobs that got shipped overseas under a variety of Presidents are coming back? Or maybe you want Obama to give more money to high tech start ups? No, you wouldn't want to do that. How about giving raises to the working poor to bring them above the poverty level? Fuck that. Infrastructure? Hell no.

How about we let the ultra rich trickle on our heads some more. That worked so well. Or if we would just reduce the taxes on the ultra wealthy, they will share? No that ain't happening.

That just about brings us back to my first suggestion. Anyone making over 10k a year is middle class.
Problem solved.

BTW, you really think people on here believe that you give a flying fuck about people in poverty? LMAO.

You just want to try and bash Obama over it.

That's just plain stupid. Calm down and try again.

Proof positive that the lefties really are actively working towards regression and a lower standard of living for all.