If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Going Backwards: U.S. poverty on track to rise to highest levels since the 1960s, when the War On Poverty began   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 239
    More: Sad, war on poverty, U.S., Highlands Ranch, discouraged worker, Wheat Ridge, subprime mortgage crisis, child poverty, poverty line  
•       •       •

1686 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 2:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



239 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-22 03:24:54 PM
Gonna need more tax cuts for the rich stat!
 
2012-07-22 03:26:49 PM

IrateShadow: RadioAaron: FTFA: "Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes the social safety net has worked and it is now time to cut back. He worries that advocates may use a rising poverty rate to justify additional spending on the poor, when in fact, he says, many live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs."

I bet they own refrigerators, too.

If we could somehow harvest DERP, we'd be rolling in jobs.

He knows full well that those wide-screen tvs are the only reasons he and his friends aren't swinging from every high thing that can hold their weight.


Very much THIS!
 
2012-07-22 03:36:09 PM

indoorplant: If the war on poverty was a real war then we would actually be putting money into it


$80 billion on food stamps, $20 billion on TANF, $300 billion on Medicaid, $35 billion in housing subsidies... that's nit money put into it? And that's only federal spending.
 
2012-07-22 03:39:25 PM

elchip: $80 billion on food stamps, $20 billion on TANF, $300 billion on Medicaid, $35 billion in housing subsidies... that's nit money put into it? And that's only federal spending.


Source?
 
2012-07-22 03:45:13 PM
We've gotta hit back harder with this war on poverty. They steal one shopping cart? We break ten of their arms. They stink up one park bench? We firebomb a cardboard-structured alleyway. We could eliminate the homelessness situation by 2016.
 
2012-07-22 03:45:41 PM

elchip: SkinnyHead: Way to go, Mr. O.

Wait, you mean we weren't banned?


No way, Mr. K.
 
2012-07-22 03:50:05 PM

Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.


Generational welfare will break the circle of poverty, we just need more time.
 
2012-07-22 03:50:38 PM
That's because of Reagan's "War on the Impoverished" since 1981.
 
2012-07-22 03:51:41 PM
And, funnily enough, the rich are richer than they've ever been.
 
2012-07-22 03:54:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

You would think after 60 years of massive national security spending we secure enough to not need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.


that spending increases the survivability of troops....you want them to face an enemy while wearing a canvas flak jacket?

What do you have against our troops living through a firefight anyway?
 
2012-07-22 03:56:39 PM
Gee, I wonder what has happened with taxes on the rich since then?
 
2012-07-22 03:57:15 PM

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

You would think after 60 years of massive national security spending we secure enough to not need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.

that spending increases the survivability of troops....you want them to face an enemy while wearing a canvas flak jacket?

What do you have against our troops living through a firefight anyway?


And we totally need brand new, super-awesome jet fighters (with two engine types, one of which the Pentagon didn't even WANT) to fight insurgents armed with Soviet surplus.
 
2012-07-22 03:57:43 PM

SkinnyHead: Way to go, Mr. O.


Reagan's last name doesn't start with an O, you cock.
 
2012-07-22 03:59:04 PM

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

You would think after 60 years of massive national security spending we secure enough to not need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.

that spending increases the survivability of troops....you want them to face an enemy while wearing a canvas flak jacket?

What do you have against our troops living through a firefight anyway?


Yes...every bit of defense spending is absolutely necessary because the defense budget isn't full of waste like other government programs and any cuts to the defense budget automatically put our troops in danger and means that anyone who proposes cuts to the defense budget hates the troops.
 
2012-07-22 04:01:41 PM

LordJiro: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

You would think after 60 years of massive national security spending we secure enough to not need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.

that spending increases the survivability of troops....you want them to face an enemy while wearing a canvas flak jacket?

What do you have against our troops living through a firefight anyway?

And we totally need brand new, super-awesome jet fighters (with two engine types, one of which the Pentagon didn't even WANT) to fight insurgents armed with Soviet surplus.


Did you vote for any of the politicians that forced the other engine on the military budget?

You might be part of the problem.
 
2012-07-22 04:03:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

You would think after 60 years of massive national security spending we secure enough to not need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.

that spending increases the survivability of troops....you want them to face an enemy while wearing a canvas flak jacket?

What do you have against our troops living through a firefight anyway?

Yes...every bit of defense spending is absolutely necessary because the defense budget isn't full of waste like other government programs and any cuts to the defense budget automatically put our troops in danger and means that anyone who proposes cuts to the defense budget hates the troops.


I have no problem cutting waste, I don;t even have a problem reducing the number of regular military in favor of smaller SF units...but who gets to decide whats waste? the democrat or the republican whos district manufactures a second engine noone wants?
 
2012-07-22 04:04:02 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about gov't handouts. First the recipients welcome it, then they expect it, then they take it for granted, and finally they resent it. Have you ever known a welfare person who is honestly appreciative of what others have given them?


You forgot the "riot if it looks like it might go away" stage. The one the Europeans are at.
 
2012-07-22 04:04:04 PM
Taxes when spent properly give us a good quality of life. Taxes cover the quality and safety of building, roads, food, and etc. Even with taxes there will always be poor but by supporting our poor, it gives them a quality of life too. With taxes the US has a higher educated population. Now that certain taxes have been cut over the year other tax money collected is being diverted to cover programs that those taxes covered. The result is neglect. It is seen in the quality of life we have, the maintenance and safety of our infrastructures.

Some of the European countries are an example how quality of life is dependent on taxes. Now that majority of their population is not working the tax revenue has decreased and the governments are not able to support the no working population.
 
2012-07-22 04:04:35 PM

Il Douchey: Funny thing about gov't handouts. First the recipients welcome it, then they expect it, then they take it for granted, and finally they resent it. Have you ever known a welfare person who is honestly appreciative of what others have given them?


There comes a dichotomy between being thankful for the benefits, and self-loathing for having to get them.
 
2012-07-22 04:05:25 PM
Sad, isn't it?
 
2012-07-22 04:05:32 PM
unfortunately the super rich have sucked out all the expendable capital from the middle class and are hoarding it offshore and now the support pillars for their top heavy economic structure have been weakened to the breaking point. of course more of the middle have slid into the ranks of the impoverished as a result. OTOH the super rich have never had it so good. Or had as much political influence.
 
2012-07-22 04:10:48 PM

Virtuoso80: Clearly what we need is more Government spending, and a 'poverty czar'. That always solves everything, right?


Government spending yes.

We desperately need infrastructure upgrades and capitol improvements for schools.
Spending here would put millions to work. It beats the crap out o unemployment extensions.

Poverty Czar? There's no limit to the number of advisers a president can bring in.
This just seems like a totally idiotic, nee, moronic point.

Fat dumb and trolltastic is no way to go through life son.
 
2012-07-22 04:12:40 PM

Hobodeluxe: unfortunately the super rich have sucked out all the expendable capital from the middle class and are hoarding it offshore and now the support pillars for their top heavy economic structure have been weakened to the breaking point. of course more of the middle have slid into the ranks of the impoverished as a result. OTOH the super rich have never had it so good. Or had as much political influence.


Seen this yet? The rich are getting poorer, too.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611
 
2012-07-22 04:13:39 PM

FlashHarry: clearly we need more tax breaks for millionaires so the wealth will trickle down further!


Like a great golden shower.
 
2012-07-22 04:14:34 PM

shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: unfortunately the super rich have sucked out all the expendable capital from the middle class and are hoarding it offshore and now the support pillars for their top heavy economic structure have been weakened to the breaking point. of course more of the middle have slid into the ranks of the impoverished as a result. OTOH the super rich have never had it so good. Or had as much political influence.

Seen this yet? The rich are getting poorer, too.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611


Because they're losing the middle class spending that's always propped them up.
 
2012-07-22 04:17:18 PM
Don't worry everyone. This is not Obama's fault.

He even said so.
 
2012-07-22 04:22:31 PM
Looks like we got the DHS installed just in time. What a coincidence.
 
2012-07-22 04:23:36 PM
And as long as we continue to experience immigration, we'll always have a bottom 20% who are going to drain public services.

What these stats dont tell you is that on a generational level, the actual flesh and blood people move out from poverty only to be replaced by the young and uneducated and the immigrant.
 
2012-07-22 04:24:04 PM
So, more tax cuts for the rich?
 
2012-07-22 04:25:45 PM

cabbyman: Don't worry everyone. This is not Obama's fault.

He even said so.


Yeah, let's vote for the guy who was in charge of MA when it was 47th in job creation.

THAT'S the guy that'll get us out of poverty!
 
2012-07-22 04:27:21 PM
So let's tax the rich less and the poor more so they can have more "skin in the game"!
 
2012-07-22 04:28:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Don't worry everyone. This is not Obama's fault.

He even said so.

Yeah, let's vote for the guy who was in charge of MA when it was 47th in job creation.

THAT'S the guy that'll get us out of poverty!


What do they call it when you keep doing the same thing expecting different results?
 
2012-07-22 04:29:07 PM

cabbyman: Don't worry everyone. This is not Obama's fault.

He even said so.


Indeed. This has got to be the most antag0nistic congress I have ever seen in my 52 years.

I do blame congress. I'm glad you do as well.

You do blame congress too, right?

/You farking should.
 
2012-07-22 04:30:00 PM

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Don't worry everyone. This is not Obama's fault.

He even said so.

Yeah, let's vote for the guy who was in charge of MA when it was 47th in job creation.

THAT'S the guy that'll get us out of poverty!

What do they call it when you keep doing the same thing expecting different results?


Vaild point.

Why should we vote for a Republican who embraces Bush-era economic policies when we saw what a lackluster job it did with economic growth?

Now THAT'S doing the same thing and expecting different results.
 
2012-07-22 04:30:16 PM

Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.


Much of the programs were aimed at the elderly, who, prior to the war on poverty, had about a 35% poverty rate. Those programs are extremely effective - the current poverty rate for the elderly is under 9%.

In other age groups, the efforts have been primarily on mitigating the effects of poverty rather than keeping people out of poverty to begin with. For example, expanding welfare will raise the quality of life for the impoverished, but it won't reduce the number of impoverished because that is not counted as income when determining who is in poverty.
 
2012-07-22 04:30:20 PM

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Don't worry everyone. This is not Obama's fault.

He even said so.

Yeah, let's vote for the guy who was in charge of MA when it was 47th in job creation.

THAT'S the guy that'll get us out of poverty!

What do they call it when you keep doing the same thing expecting different results?


Obama has been president for the last 60 years?
 
2012-07-22 04:32:23 PM
This is clearly Obama's fault. He went back in time and tricked Republicans into dismantling social welfare programs in the 80's and 90's.
 
2012-07-22 04:32:48 PM
When the rich take over the country we can become just like Russia. How much do we all wan that?
 
2012-07-22 04:33:25 PM

Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.


The point was to make poverty less crappy, not to make the poor wealthy.
 
2012-07-22 04:37:09 PM
One of the candidates has a history of creating jobs and building wealth.

The other is Obama.
 
2012-07-22 04:37:14 PM

MrEricSir: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

The point was to make poverty less crappy, not to make the poor wealthy.


Well if you make something less crappy it winds up being not that bad.....where is the incentive to escape "not that bad"?

If you hold out longer, "not that bad" should eventually turn into..."rather nice, actually"....right?
 
2012-07-22 04:39:00 PM
You want to end poverty, eliminate tax rates, and create a better social safety net, America Inc., every person who works in the US becomes an employee of the US government who pays their salary and provides them with health care. Their will be no retirement, workers will be paid a rate of no less then 90% off what the government charges for their services. As for the non-productive members of society they will be paid the lowest rate, a barley standard living wage.

The government then sell labor to corporations who pay the government for the privilege. The government bureaucracy will then be run exactly like a corporation.
 
2012-07-22 04:39:52 PM

SkinnyHead: Way to go, Mr. O.


You sound Tired.
 
2012-07-22 04:41:49 PM

cabbyman: One of the candidates has a history of creating jobs and building wealth.


How come he didn't do that when he was Governor of Massachusetts?

Why should we expect him to do a better job as president than he did as governor when it comes to job growth?
 
2012-07-22 04:43:19 PM

Giltric: MrEricSir: Giltric: You would think that after 50 years of these programs designed to get people out of poverty, the numbers would have shrunk by now.

The point was to make poverty less crappy, not to make the poor wealthy.

Well if you make something less crappy it winds up being not that bad.....where is the incentive to escape "not that bad"?

If you hold out longer, "not that bad" should eventually turn into..."rather nice, actually"....right?


Obviously it was better when people in poverty were dying on the streets.
 
2012-07-22 04:43:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: One of the candidates has a history of creating jobs and building wealth.

How come he didn't do that when he was Governor of Massachusetts?

Why should we expect him to do a better job as president than he did as governor when it comes to job growth?


Because he could hardly do worse than our current disaster in chief...
 
2012-07-22 04:45:09 PM

cabbyman: One of the candidates has a history of creating jobs in China, India, and basically anywhere that isn't America and building wealth for himself, at the expense of everyone else..

The other is Obama.


FTFY.
 
2012-07-22 04:47:19 PM

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: One of the candidates has a history of creating jobs and building wealth.

How come he didn't do that when he was Governor of Massachusetts?

Why should we expect him to do a better job as president than he did as governor when it comes to job growth?

Because he could hardly do worse than our current disaster in chief...


Yeah, 0b0ng0 is such a disaster, we're in the second Great Depression, no jobs have been created since he took office (in stark contrast to his predecessor's stellar jobs record), and Osama bin Laden is still alive.

/It's opposite day, right?
 
2012-07-22 04:47:24 PM

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: One of the candidates has a history of creating jobs and building wealth.

How come he didn't do that when he was Governor of Massachusetts?

Why should we expect him to do a better job as president than he did as governor when it comes to job growth?

Because he could hardly do worse than our current disaster in chief...


Wow...I'm totally convinced.

After that very detailed and convincing argument, I'm voting for Romney all the way!
 
2012-07-22 04:47:28 PM
WWJD?

KSA.
 
Displayed 50 of 239 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report