What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ryan- help the poor by slashing programs that help the poor

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
9,941
Points
2,040
Paul Ryan Poverty Speech Proposes Reforming Programs For The Poor

In his first policy speech since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan said he and Mitt Romney will restore upward mobility and fight poverty in part by limiting the federal government's commitment to safety net programs.

Fight poverty by causing poverty. A novel approach but pretty much what we've come to expect from these two pricks.

Ryan noted that Americans born into poor families are more likely to stay poor as adults than Americans born into wealthy families.

Boy, nothing gets past this bag of slime.

So when do they get to the part about forcing women to bear children? That has been SliminRyan's position for as long as he's been in office and now Mitten's has endorsed a fundie nutter who says god wants raped women to be pregnant. but, I just bet they'll wait until after the election to tell us any more than that. WHY? Because they're both lying sneaks.
 
OP
Luddly Neddite

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
9,941
Points
2,040
Be sure to check out the slide show. Scroll down a bit.

To say the least, its educational
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
75,895
Reaction score
47,377
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Gubmint programs for the sainted poooooor haven't helped them.

If they did, there would be no poor, after the trillions upon trillions that have been thrown at "poverty".
 
OP
Luddly Neddite

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
9,941
Points
2,040
Yeah, far better to let them starve in the streets, right?

In point of fact, you are wrong.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
75,895
Reaction score
47,377
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Better to invoke hyperbole than face the facts, huh?

Point of fact is that the rates of "poverty" haven't been reduced one iota since 1965.

As though that's supposed to be evidence of the success of socialistic wealth redistribution? :lol:
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
55,663
Reaction score
20,928
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Yeah, far better to let them starve in the streets, right?

In point of fact, you are wrong.

The percentage of people living in "poverty" in this country is roughly the same as it was when the Great Society programs were instituted. It's nothing but a giant waste of money in order to buy votes for politicians.
 
OP
Luddly Neddite

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
9,941
Points
2,040
rw's really get their kicks watching kids starve ... And forcing women to bear children.

SliminRyan is definitely your guy.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,872
Reaction score
54,062
Points
2,190
Gubmint programs for the sainted poooooor haven't helped them.

If they did, there would be no poor, after the trillions upon trillions that have been thrown at "poverty".

Why is it that in countries that do less for their poor the poor do not do better?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
75,895
Reaction score
47,377
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Oh, so countries that have done nothing for the pooooor are no better off than America, which has thrown trillions at "poverty".

Thanks for inadvertently helping to make my point. :lol:
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,872
Reaction score
54,062
Points
2,190
Oh, so countries that have done nothing for the pooooor are no better off than America, which has thrown trillions at "poverty".

Thanks for inadvertently helping to make my point. :lol:

Maybe you can 'splain it

How does removing assistance to the poor make them wealthier?
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
We should make everyone poor by redistributing all the wealth. :rolleyes:
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,872
Reaction score
54,062
Points
2,190

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
75,895
Reaction score
47,377
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Oh, so countries that have done nothing for the pooooor are no better off than America, which has thrown trillions at "poverty".

Thanks for inadvertently helping to make my point. :lol:

Maybe you can 'splain it

How does removing assistance to the poor make them wealthier?
We know that redistributing trillions of dollars hasn't made them wealthier, as evidenced by the lack of decline in poverty rate, so how does removing the "assistance" harm them?
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
62,787
Reaction score
20,747
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
Oh, so countries that have done nothing for the pooooor are no better off than America, which has thrown trillions at "poverty".

Thanks for inadvertently helping to make my point. :lol:

Maybe you can 'splain it

How does removing assistance to the poor make them wealthier?

It forces them to go out and get one of those many high-paying jobs.
 
OP
Luddly Neddite

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
9,941
Points
2,040

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,872
Reaction score
54,062
Points
2,190
Oh, so countries that have done nothing for the pooooor are no better off than America, which has thrown trillions at "poverty".

Thanks for inadvertently helping to make my point. :lol:

Maybe you can 'splain it

How does removing assistance to the poor make them wealthier?
We know that redistributing trillions of dollars hasn't made them wealthier, as evidenced by the lack of decline in poverty rate, so how does removing the "assistance" harm them?

It makes them wealthier than they would be if they received no aid at all.

You have yet to explain how removing aid makes them better off
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,872
Reaction score
54,062
Points
2,190

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
You would anyway. You'e still stupid. Shit, you probaby voted several times. :lmao:
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top