Poverty Reaches 50 Year Record Under Obama...

[boedicca]

What do we have for 50 years of the War on Poverty?

- an increase in out of wedlock births from 6% to 41%.
- a bunch of fat illiterate kids who grow up to have more fat illiterate kids.
- $20.7T down the drain...or more likely in the coffers of Big Government Cronies and the Public Sector Union apparatus.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

So how do you stop the rich from getting richer while helping the middle class?

 

[whitehall]

It seems that poverty has increased since LBJ declared war on poverty about 50 years ago. The problem is that democrats have it rigged so their fat cat pimps get the government handouts for votes. Once a social handout program is established it is impossible to repeal it and few politicians have the balls to try.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

I've seen Robocop. I know how this story ends.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Good point but you have to remember this is the same crowd that trots out the global cooling story on a hot day and a global warming story on a cold one.

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.

Bolded = Good point

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

How about an example of a country with no safety net and low poverty.

I'm sure you have plenty of examples.

 

[paulitician]

Do you give this President a free pass? Or do you blame him? What say you all?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

These people don't understand that there's a difference between public services within a liberalized capitalist system and a centralized Marxist society.

One does things for the people and allows for the common man to make something of him/her self. But the other is just government controlled of everything.

I am thinking that conservatives get the two confused.

 

[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.

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.

You're right, the U.S. is the best example of conservative policies in action today and where has that gotten us? If you are so convinced progressive policies are the downfall of us, why are we lagging behind in so many areas behind much more progressive countries than our own?

Because conservative policies don't work for the advancement of society while progressive policies do and this has been proven.

 

[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.

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

No dude, plain stupid is you trying to pin this entire mess on Obama. That's fucking nuts.

But any on those points you want to refute, fire away.

Trickle down did what for reducing poverty?
Tax cuts for the ultra wealthy did what to reduce poverty?
Fighting a Minimum wage increase does what to reduce poverty?
Shipping jobs off shore does what to reduce poverty?

Have at it. Tell us all how those things worked so well for the people of America.

 

[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.

Nice admission. Does that include Obama?

He is the president, is he not?

 

[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.

So how do you stop the rich from getting richer while helping the middle class?

Remove the ability to influence government policies through campaign donations. No more money in government. Not in elections, not in legislation, not anywhere.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Jesus said that the poor will always be among us.

 

[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.

No dude, plain stupid is you trying to pin this entire mess on Obama. That's fucking nuts.

But any on those points you want to refute, fire away.

Trickle down did what for reducing poverty?
Tax cuts for the ultra wealthy did what to reduce poverty?
Fighting a Minimum wage increase does what to reduce poverty?
Shipping jobs off shore does what to reduce poverty?

Have at it. Tell us all how those things worked so well for the people of America.

I haven't blamed the entire mess on Obama. But i won't give him a free pass either. You seem far too willing to give him that free pass. I suspect it's because you're still caught up in that 'D' and 'R' thing.

 

[Mustang]

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®

Just out of curiosity, how are the rich doing?

 

[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.

These people don't understand that there's a difference between public services within a liberalized capitalist system and a centralized Marxist society.

One does things for the people and allows for the common man to make something of him/her self. But the other is just government controlled of everything.

I am thinking that conservatives get the two confused.

Agreed. There is a happy median. Why they can't understand this is amazing.

 

[The T]

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?

He is the president, is he not?

Again? Thanks for the admission. Now? Are YOU going to stop supporting failed policies? DID this awaken YOU to the reality of the tyranny of government/politicians in it for themselves, their POWER OVER YOU by their meddling and NOT for you?

One can hope.

 

[Erand7899]

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!

It is a shame that many liberal/socialists are incapable of thinking outside of their standard talking points. The purpose of public education is educating children, not providing employment for teachers. Public education does not require public schools, although it can work just as efficiently with public schools. If we consider that the client is the child, and not the teacher's unions, then the money can follow the child to the best education possible in the area that he/she lives. If the public schools are competent, most parents will pick the public school. If not, at least they have options for their child.

We already have, and have had from the beginning, private and/or volunteer fire fighters in thousands of communities across this great nation. It is the best idea to allow local citizens the responsibility to determine the makeup of their fire protection.

Police protection, fire protection, public schools, etc. are all local and state functions, and should be left to the citizens of that state and/or locality to figure out. The federal government has no business in any of it.

 

[zeke]

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

No dude, plain stupid is you trying to pin this entire mess on Obama. That's fucking nuts.

But any on those points you want to refute, fire away.

Trickle down did what for reducing poverty?
Tax cuts for the ultra wealthy did what to reduce poverty?
Fighting a Minimum wage increase does what to reduce poverty?
Shipping jobs off shore does what to reduce poverty?

Have at it. Tell us all how those things worked so well for the people of America.

I haven't blamed the entire mess on Obama. But i won't give him a free pass either. You seem far too willing to give him that free pass. I suspect it's because you're still caught up in that 'D' and 'R' thing.

No dude, it don't (or shouldn't) work that way. You claimed Obama's policies have made a major contribution to the increase in poverty rates.

I pointed out a variety of topics that contributed more than Obama's policies. You know why Obama's job policies didn't make a big contribution to decreases in poverty?
They never got implemented.

Maybe you could point out the legislation that Obama backed that took jobs away from people. Or caused their wages to reduce.

Or course I could write your response. It's OBAMACARE. Right? Giving health insurance is the reason more live in poverty. Right? LMAO.

I am not giving anyone a "free pass". But you tell me what the policies I mentioned ( all of them pushed and favored by Republicans and some Dems) aren't more responsible than the policies that Obama never got through Congress. (besides Obamacare.)

 

[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.

These people don't understand that there's a difference between public services within a liberalized capitalist system and a centralized Marxist society.

One does things for the people and allows for the common man to make something of him/her self. But the other is just government controlled of everything.

I am thinking that conservatives get the two confused.

Most societies don't start out full blown Government control, they evolve to that. Just like America has done/doing. When we were free we had the most economic upward mobility for people, as we have become welfare dependent, over-regulated and over taxed we have shifted from prosperous to an extreme wealthy and decaying middle class, like in all countries that cling to progressive policy.

Rdd claims Iran and Pakistan are = to that on conservatism.... Conservatism that is based on the constitution of the United states, a restriction on Governmental powers. Now if I had claimed he and Obama, even you are closer in line with progressives that of Hitler, I'm sure this conversation would be super fun times.

Matt, you're a progressive, RDD is a progressive... You both agree in dictatorial like powers of the Government over it's people. You Seem honestly confused as to why it always ends up corrupted, but ignore the signs and answers given to you repeatedly as you ask for more powers/money be given to those that sold you out.