Poverty Reaches 50 Year Record Under Obama...

[Clementine]

1. I'd rather have my police departments overseen by my elected officials that I voted for.
2. Not everyone can afford to go to private schools.

If there were more private schools, the cost would go way down. Some private companies run city libraries and they have bigger staff and nicer facilities. They are still free to the public.

Public schools cost lots of money, especially when the home owners must fund pensions and benefits. Most of the money used in the name of improving education is actually used to shore up pensions.

Private companies would offer better conditions for the students.

I suppose some feel good if the police and fire departments were run by people they elected, but they can also be run by people you didn't elect and don't trust.

All we want are things that work and don't cost more than they should. You'll never get that with any government endeavor.

Government has a tendency to waste large sums of money while churning out poor results. That is what we see with the war on poverty, social security and Medicare.

Tackling a problem means reducing the number of people suffering. We see more and more people qualifying for welfare and, these days, many people qualify who probably shouldn't. Why will people take the effort to get a better job by taking more classes or finding a more difficult job if they are subsidized? Welfare was meant as a temporary safety net, not a program to keep people comfortable in poverty. A roof over their heads and food on the table was the deal until they could pick themselves up. Now, we expect to provide homes, utilities, food, clothing, phones, internet and the majority own a vehicle and have cable and the EBT card allows spending money on top of necessities. Maybe if people knew that help was temporary and only provided the basics, they would be more determined to make changes. Maybe more young people would stay in school if they knew there wasn't a system that invited fraud, waste and abuse.

We have millions of illegals and probably tens of millions of children born to illegals who are on welfare. We invite people to come take advantage of us.

 

[paulitician]

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.)

It happened on his watch. It's his responsibility. No amount of spin can change that.

 

[Duped]

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!

I don't know about riches, but your right. Welfare is insane. When you feed the impoverished, they will multiply along with their ethics.
47 million on food stamps Most of these people on them won't ever want to give them up; they feel entitled. Many are fat asses who are steadily multipling. They can't feed themselves, but they still feel they are entitled to multiply - that it is the workers duty to provide for their progeny
The saftey net ( laughable ) should be charity organizations; not a government redistribution apparatus. Too many spoiled gamers - work or stay hungry!

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

I talked about meeting somewhere in the middle while keeping restraints, you hate the constitution and fully support a Government take over. That is the issue here. You in no way support privet education or only support it as a token "see it can exist."

 

[Avorysuds]

It's amazing to me how much people like RDD and Mat hate evolution. If you try and save everything you have a rapid breakdown of everything... Everyone can't have it all, it comes from somewhere. The cost always catches up, and we're not talking about the $ cost.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I usually can take asinine statement. I usually can take uninformed statements. I can even weather partisan BS but I am really getting f...king tired of hearing about how conservatives run the country. Grow the f...k up already. The democrats, and the most liberal among them, have controlled the CONGRESS for 7 f..king disastrous years. Grow up already and accept that the war on poverty is lost, it hasn't worked we are a country without jobs. What irks me is when people like you forget that the liberals have controlled at least 2/3s of the government for 7 long years....

 

[ron4342]

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.

Hummmmm...... Great idea! Let's privatize all the school teachers and give them even less money. That should surely be incentive for the best and brightest to choose a career in education. In education, just like everywhere else, you get what you pay for. The best and the brightest will be smart enough to seek better jobs. Expect to end up with the dimmest and dumbest.

 

[zeke]

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.)

It happened on his watch. It's his responsibility. No amount of spin can change that.

You are fuking PITIFUL in defending your POV. Is that really all you got? Obama's watch. What a fucking waste of time. And I used to think you were one of the smarter right wingers. I really thought you could tell me how shipping million of good paying factory jobs off shore had helped reduce poverty.

Damn, wrong again.

But it is good to know that you fully pin the blame on Bush for the fucking disaster in Iraq.
Bush's watch and all.

At least we can agree on that. And no amount of spin can change that either.

 

[oreo]

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.

The Federal Government has been expanding in leaps and bounds while the private sector continues to shrink. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. The Federal Government was never intended to expand faster than the private sector.

Every single agency within the federal government needs to be CUT--so the Private Sector can expand.

Obama and democrats for the last 6 years have achieved nothing as far as JOB GROWTH in this country. This so called economic recovery is often referred to as a "jobless recovery." What they have achieved--is adding thousands of new regulations onto private sector business in this country that are Job Killers, and policies that have made things much worse. Obamacare aka the Affordable health care that has turned out to be the not so Affordable Health care act for millions of middle class Americans. Taking more money out of their pockets--driving economic conditions DOWN again.

This hasn't even hit the employer mandate as yet--democrats wisely postponed that until after the mid term elections in November. Employers have a tendency to lay off employees or cut back on hours when they are required to pay for more regulations.

So with the current administration in place--the trend is down which will result in more POVERTY in this country--due to Obama's economic policies.

 

[The T]

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.)

It happened on his watch. It's his responsibility. No amount of spin can change that.

You are fuking PITIFUL in defending your POV. Is that really all you got? Obama's watch. What a fucking waste of time. And I used to think you were one of the smarter right wingers. I really thought you could tell me how shipping million of good paying factory jobs off shore had helped reduce poverty.

Damn, wrong again.

But it is good to know that you fully pin the blame on Bush for the fucking disaster in Iraq.
Bush's watch and all.

At least we can agree on that. And no amount of spin can change that either.

Still hung on BUSH? Sure Bush is just as guilty...Obama is as well. Wake up.

 

[paulitician]

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.)

It happened on his watch. It's his responsibility. No amount of spin can change that.

You are fuking PITIFUL in defending your POV. Is that really all you got? Obama's watch. What a fucking waste of time. And I used to think you were one of the smarter right wingers. I really thought you could tell me how shipping million of good paying factory jobs off shore had helped reduce poverty.

Damn, wrong again.

But it is good to know that you fully pin the blame on Bush for the fucking disaster in Iraq.
Bush's watch and all.

At least we can agree on that. And no amount of spin can change that either.

If it happens on your watch, you have to accept some responsibility. It is what it is.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Have you got any straw men left, or did you use them all in one dumbass post?

Poor is a relative term. You should know little things like that. The poor in America are living much better than the poor in most other countries in the world. However, we still consider them poor in relationship to the average American. Nor, is poor a derogatory term, unless uttered by a left winger with political intentions in mind.

Poverty and poor describe two different groups. Poor means one can afford the necessities of life, but few, if any, of the luxuries. Poverty means that one cannot fully sustain the necessities for themselves or their families. Poverty needs assistance of some sort. Poor does not.

No president caused jobs to go overseas. However, taxation and regulations figure in to the economic equations that caused the jobs to leave the country.

 

[The T]

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.

Have you got any straw men left, or did you use them all in one dumbass post?

Poor is a relative term. You should know little things like that. The poor in America are living much better than the poor in most other countries in the world. However, we still consider them poor in relationship to the average American. Nor, is poor a derogatory term, unless uttered by a left winger with political intentions in mind.

Poverty and poor describe two different groups. Poor means one can afford the necessities of life, but few, if any, of the luxuries. Poverty means that one cannot fully sustain the necessities for themselves or their families. Poverty needs assistance of some sort. Poor does not.

No president caused jobs to go overseas. However, taxation and regulations figure in to the economic equations that caused the jobs to leave the country.

^Truth. Congress is just as culpable.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Show me the politician that will vow to remove all money from politics and I will vote for him/her.

 

[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.

Have you got any straw men left, or did you use them all in one dumbass post?

Poor is a relative term. You should know little things like that. The poor in America are living much better than the poor in most other countries in the world. However, we still consider them poor in relationship to the average American. Nor, is poor a derogatory term, unless uttered by a left winger with political intentions in mind.

Poverty and poor describe two different groups. Poor means one can afford the necessities of life, but few, if any, of the luxuries. Poverty means that one cannot fully sustain the necessities for themselves or their families. Poverty needs assistance of some sort. Poor does not.

No president caused jobs to go overseas. However, taxation and regulations figure in to the economic equations that caused the jobs to leave the country.

First look up the definition of "sarcasm".

Second, do you know what the income levels are that are used to define "poverty"?
10,830 for a single person. And 22,050 for a family of four.

Fucking poor people who make under those guideline numbers, whether they receive government assistance or not, are considered to be living in poverty.

Poverty is the conditions under which POOR people live.

You could make 100k a year, spend 125k a year and be POOR. But you wouldn't be living in POVERTY.

Good god you right wingers are stupid.

 

[The T]

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.

Show me the politician that will vow to remove all money from politics and I will vote for him/her.

All you have to do is look...PRINCIPLE of Country first...oh, and FORGET parties...they're the bane to this Republic.

And yes money is the root...

Studying their records is helpful though, isn't it?

 

[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.

Have you got any straw men left, or did you use them all in one dumbass post?

Poor is a relative term. You should know little things like that. The poor in America are living much better than the poor in most other countries in the world. However, we still consider them poor in relationship to the average American. Nor, is poor a derogatory term, unless uttered by a left winger with political intentions in mind.

Poverty and poor describe two different groups. Poor means one can afford the necessities of life, but few, if any, of the luxuries. Poverty means that one cannot fully sustain the necessities for themselves or their families. Poverty needs assistance of some sort. Poor does not.

No president caused jobs to go overseas. However, taxation and regulations figure in to the economic equations that caused the jobs to leave the country.

^Truth. Congress is just as culpable.

No the presidents were just complicit (in shipping jobs out). Standing by while it was going on and doing NOTHING to stop it.

At least Obama ENCOURAGED manufactures to move jobs BACK to the USA.

 

[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!

I don't know about riches, but your right. Welfare is insane. When you feed the impoverished, they will multiply along with their ethics.
47 million on food stamps Most of these people on them won't ever want to give them up; they feel entitled. Many are fat asses who are steadily multipling. They can't feed themselves, but they still feel they are entitled to multiply - that it is the workers duty to provide for their progeny
The saftey net ( laughable ) should be charity organizations; not a government redistribution apparatus. Too many spoiled gamers - work or stay hungry!

The lack of safety net is working so well in..........

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poverty Reaches 50 Year Record Under Obama...

Understanding that the conditions were created by Republican congress with helpful GOP and Dem presidents, I agree that the Dems and the GOP have to work together to get out of this.

Ultrasound wands are not part of the solution.

 

[thanatos144]

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

Great observation. Yeah, most Neocons are former Progressive Democrats. They're really still Progressives. I mean, some may appear 'Conservative', but that's only when being compared to the extreme Left Communists who run the other Party. Anyone can appear Conservative or Right, when compared to Communists. The Neocon Leadership are actually Progressives in the end. They may not be quite as extreme, but they are Big Government Authoritarians.

Stop talking out of your ass. Neo con means new conservative thus they didnt have to be liberal first... No normally the liberals they go to your neck of the woods of libertarian because of the legal pot and hooker stances you guys have.