CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[PoliticalChic]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

 

[GaryDog]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

Folks with an education are capable of both: one studies many perspectives, and judges truth and reality.

I didn't mean that you should employ same...it would require a certain natural ability you've....sadly....been deprived of.


For the future:
Before being a smartass, it is wise to first ensure one is smart. Otherwise one is merely being an ass.

Someone should have informed you.

 

[GaryDog]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

Folks with an education are capable of both: one studies many perspectives, and judges truth and reality.

I didn't mean that you should employ same...it would require a certain natural ability you've....sadly....been deprived of.


For the future:
Before being a smartass, it is wise to first ensure one is smart. Otherwise one is merely being an ass.

Someone should have informed you.

And before you lecture like a pedantic, arrogant tool, maybe check to see if you're adding anything to the convo whatsoever.

 

[Andylusion]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.

When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.

Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.

All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.

But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.

Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?

Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.

Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.

Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.

That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.

When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.

So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.

I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.

Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.

That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

 

[Andylusion]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

Yeah "old fogey". This will be enlightening for sure.

Do tell fogey... which country would you point to, that doesn't have economic slumps, and free food for all? Where is that country?

Yes, if you riot, and try and burn down my house, or as you said "sweep us away", you should be, and will be, shot dead. And I'll sleep fine. And listen, I won't apologize for it. Do you understand? In my little corner of my city, we have 4 or 5 CCW holders, right in my little condo area. You and your little mindless left-wing screw balls come to 'sweep us away' like you said, and you best be coming with Kevlar, and the good stuff. I only have a 9mm. Some around here make my gun sound like a BB gun.

Us on the right-wing, we're completely harmless until you think you have a right to Anarchy. Then you are going to find out we are not door mats to be walked over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

 

[320 Years of History]

Clinton-era welfare reforms haunt America's poorest families, critics say

The link about is from a publisher that doesn't have any "skin in the game" of welfare. It's a UK paper. It doesn't matter to them what way welfare policy in the U.S. works.

 

[GaryDog]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.

When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.

Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.

All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.

But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.

Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?

Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.

Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.

Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.

That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.

When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.

So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.

I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.

Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.

That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.

The minimum wage has been raised many times, and it's been proven -- in countless "laboratories of democracy" in various states -- NOT to eliminate jobs. On the contrary. More money in the hands of more people is good for the economy.

You're engaging in confirmation bias. It is possible to do that and still find sources that back you up. Hell, there are people who can find "sources" that "prove" evolution is a lie.

 

[GaryDog]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

No starvation?

Lie.

Digital History

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

 

[Andylusion]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.

When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.

Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.

All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.

But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.

Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?

Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.

Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.

Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.

That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.

When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.

So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.

I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.

Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.

That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.

The minimum wage has been raised many times, and it's been proven -- in countless "laboratories of democracy" in various states -- NOT to eliminate jobs. On the contrary. More money in the hands of more people is good for the economy.

You're engaging in confirmation bias. It is possible to do that and still find sources that back you up. Hell, there are people who can find "sources" that "prove" evolution is a lie.

Right..... Compare Greece and Germany. Greece had a relatively high minimum wage compared to their GDP, and their minimum wage was indexed to inflation. Germany on the other hand, didn't even have a minimum wage until 2015. Now which did better?

We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

SeaTac, fewer employees per restaurant, higher prices to consumers. Exactly as we predicted.

Seriously, anyone who thinks the Minimum wage doesn't harm jobs, ask yourself.... if the guy who changes your oil had a minimum wage of $100 an hour.... would you hire him to change your oil? Unless you are Donald Trump, chances are.... no.

 

[GaryDog]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

Free will....

Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..

Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.



In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

And so many years later...you remain so.

"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.

It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.

When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.

Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.

All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.

But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.

Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?

Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.

Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.

Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.

That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.

When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.

So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.

I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.

Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.

That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.

The minimum wage has been raised many times, and it's been proven -- in countless "laboratories of democracy" in various states -- NOT to eliminate jobs. On the contrary. More money in the hands of more people is good for the economy.

You're engaging in confirmation bias. It is possible to do that and still find sources that back you up. Hell, there are people who can find "sources" that "prove" evolution is a lie.

Right..... Compare Greece and Germany. Greece had a relatively high minimum wage compared to their GDP, and their minimum wage was indexed to inflation. Germany on the other hand, didn't even have a minimum wage until 2015. Now which did better?

We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

SeaTac, fewer employees per restaurant, higher prices to consumers. Exactly as we predicted.

Seriously, anyone who thinks the Minimum wage doesn't harm jobs, ask yourself.... if the guy who changes your oil had a minimum wage of $100 an hour.... would you hire him to change your oil? Unless you are Donald Trump, chances are.... no.

LMAO, you want to discuss Germany? Okay.

Rid us of the minimum wage in the U.S. That's fine. But, in concert with your German ideals, let's add universal health care, universal college education, some of the highest taxes in Europe, 14 month parental leave at 2/3rds salary (mandatory), govt subsidies to avoid layoffs, months of mandatory vacation, etc. etc. etc.

Sure. Throw in all that, and we can have zero minimum wage. Moron.

 

[GaryDog]

As for Seattle, "the sky is not falling":

A year in, ‘the sky is not falling’ from Seattle’s minimum-wage hike

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

No starvation?

Lie.

Digital History

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

I never lie....and I'm never wrong.


US population :123.1 million (1930)


"...in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger."

That means 0.00000089% of the population.
That's pretty much zero, you moron.


And you're claiming it to be a national epidemic of starvation.


You must be a Liberal, huh?

 

[GaryDog]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

No starvation?

Lie.

Digital History

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

I never lie....and I'm never wrong.


US population :123.1 million (1930)


"...in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger."

That means 0.00000089% of the population.
That's pretty much zero, you moron.


And you're claiming it to be a national epidemic of starvation.


You must be a Liberal, huh?

#1, you witless moron, I never claimed there was an "epidemic."

#2, you said -- because you clearly forgot -- that starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.

110 deaths in one city in one year certainly proves that to be an out-and-out lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

No starvation?

Lie.

Digital History

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

I never lie....and I'm never wrong.


US population :123.1 million (1930)


"...in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger."

That means 0.00000089% of the population.
That's pretty much zero, you moron.


And you're claiming it to be a national epidemic of starvation.


You must be a Liberal, huh?

#1, you witless moron, I never claimed there was an "epidemic."

#2, you said -- because you clearly forgot -- that starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.

110 deaths in one city in one year certainly proves that to be an out-and-out lie.

Take a math course when you get to junior high.

Essentially zero starvation.

"According to my quick reading of the Life and death during the Great Depression by José A. Tapia Granadosa and Ana V. Diez Roux, the only noticeable increase of mortality was suicide, with a noticeable decline of mortality in every other category.

It's interesting that this paper was written in 2009, before the (shall we say) sensationalist Russian claim of 7 million deaths.

According also to Michael Mosley, life expectancy actually rose through the Great Depression. In his Horizon programme Eat, Fast and Live Longer he claims

From 1929 to 1933, in the darkest years of the great depression when people were eating far less, life expectancy increased by 6 years.



....seeing as the US diet was far higher than starvation standards before the GD, even a serious reduction would have been unlikely to induce starvation level conditions in the majority of the population. And with enough food available overall, and the US always having had a very active local charity network, it's quite likely there would have been help for at least the majority of those who could not afford to feed themselves. In fact for quite a few people a somewhat leaner diet may well have contributed to the increased life expectancy. –



They include a table that shows trends in death rates per 100,000 population. Starvation does not appear on the list, nor does it rate a mention in the article. The researchers do acknowledge that malnutrition led to decreased health during the Depression, but not to increased mortality. Malnutrition was a widespread problem, starvation was not.

Importantly, this study shows that economic crisis does not guarantee a mortality crisis, but instead reinforces the notion that what crucially matters is how governments respond and whether protective social and public health policies are in place both during and in advance of economic shocks."

Sources: David Stuckler, Christopher Meissner, Price Fishback, Sanjay Basu, Martin McKee. 2011. "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929-1937." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (link)

Price Fishback, Michael Haines, and Shawn Kantor. 2005. "Births, Deaths, and New Deal Relief During the Great Depression."


How many people in the US starved to death during the Great Depression?


....starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.


Get used to it....I'm never wrong.

I suggest you study my posts,and consider beginning a new religion based on same.

 

[rdean]

Republicans love to blame the poor.

Then they insist women have unwanted children.

Most of those getting food stamps are Republican.

5.8 million jobs available because people don't have the skills.

And Republicans want to cut school funding or introduce Bible studies that do nothing but bring people down.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans love to blame the poor.

Then they insist women have unwanted children.

Most of those getting food stamps are Republican.

5.8 million jobs available because people don't have the skills.

And Republicans want to cut school funding or introduce Bible studies that do nothing but bring people down.

So nice to see you, deanie....and glad you showed up for your lesson today.


1."..since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

2. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.


3. On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”

At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.

a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected

Scribd



"And Republicans want to cut school funding or introduce Bible studies that do nothing but bring people down."

If only.

As the Liberal-controlled schools are and abject failure.....are you a government school grad?....
...freedom of choice is the answer.

Obama believes in that for his children...just not for anyone else.

Now...just to prove your veracity....would you provide links to "Republicans want to cut school funding"?

And...the Bible?
Our Founders used it in the creation of our nation....

 

[regent]

No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.

But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.

1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?

2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?

3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.

No starvation?

Lie.

Digital History

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

Hoover checked every day and said no one was starving, and in addition, a new business enterprise had been created, selling apples on street corners. As long as we had garbage dumps or garbage cans behind restaurants no one needed to go hungry-- but the aged.