PDA

View Full Version : Dearest Leader so loves the poor ...



LWW
09-12-2010, 04:27 AM
... so he created millions more of them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON – The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power. ...

Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent <span style="color: #CC0000">(That would have been under the Imam Carter regime.)</span> during the energy crisis.

Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

Demographers also are confident the report will show:
_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.
_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.
_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas. <span style="color: #CC0000">(Oddly enough, those are areas with a history of far left leadership.)</span> ...

The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.
Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush <span style="color: #CC0000">(A cowardly act that I predict.)</span> with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008. ...

Hispanics and blacks — traditionally solid Democratic constituencies — could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year. ...

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty. </div></div>

How's that "HOPEY - CHANGEY" thing working out? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america)

LWW

Qtec
09-12-2010, 05:17 AM
You seem to know a lot about this, how did the poor do under Bush? Did more wealth go to the poor or the elite? How about food stamps? Did the demand go down or up under Bush? How abut foreclosures and bankruptcies?

Can't wait. Please answer the questions.

Q

Sev
09-12-2010, 06:29 AM
It would seem to me that does not matter at this point. Obama has the ball and seems to be dribbling aimlessly about the court.

LWW
09-12-2010, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 26pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span></u>

Q </div></div>

Please stay on topic.

LWW

Qtec
09-12-2010, 08:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 26pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span></u>

Q </div></div>

Please stay on topic.

LWW </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The GREAT LWW SCARED to ANSWER.

LOVE IT.</span>0

The truth will out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Poverty Gap in US Has Widened under Bush
by Andrew Gumbel


The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (�2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000.</span> Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population, which recently surpassed the 300 million mark. </div></div>

..........and this was in the good years, when America had some money.

Q

LWW
09-13-2010, 05:02 AM
And you feel that is a moral equivalence argument for it rising 15% in 1 year?

Have you nothing ... ever ... than B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! to defend your messiah with?

Have you no dignity ... no honor ... no shame ... no sanity ... no means of rational thought?

LWW

Qtec
09-13-2010, 05:44 AM
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/PartyControlDebt.png

Notice how from 2000 to 2006 the GOP had the power.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The chart confirms that the Neo-Cons got control of both Houses of Congress in 1995, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and singular control of our government from 2000 to 2006,</span> and yet, as the debt charts prove in Figures 1 & 3 above, even with all that power in 12 years they never controlled spending.



When Mr. Reagan was in office he had a Democratic House and a Republican Senate to deal with. But the “Great Communicator” used the bully pulpit to force both Houses of Congress to go along with his tax cuts <span style='font-size: 20pt'>on the promise that spending cuts would follow. However, the spending was never reduced. </span> The mixed-party Congress, with no presidential leadership, failed to follow through on reducing spending.



How did Mr. Clinton lead the nation into fiscal responsibility? <span style='font-size: 20pt'>When there was a Democratic run Congress he worked with them to put a policy in place that the Republicans dumped the minute Mr. Bush entered office. That reasonable and responsible policy was; if you cut taxes you must make a corresponding cut in spending. They called it “pay as you go.” </span> </div></div>

you can't drive! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyAgdCZJ4Cw)

Bush DOUBLED the Nat Debt!

He held a gun to Congress's head and forced them to give him a blank cheque to bail out the banks. It was no coincidence that he dropped this bombshell on everyone when it became clear that Obama would be the next President.

How much of that 6 Trillion Dollars did you see?

Q

LWW
09-13-2010, 05:51 AM
Please stay on topic ... either that or be honest and just cut and paste B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!

LWW

LWW
09-13-2010, 05:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">watch?v=KyAgdCZJ4Cw]you can't drive![/url] Bush DOUBLED the Nat Debt!

He held a gun to Congress's head and forced them to give him a blank cheque to bail out the banks.

Q </div></div>

I hereby nominate this as delusional post of the year.

LWW

Chopstick
09-13-2010, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/PartyControlDebt.png

Notice how from 2000 to 2006 the GOP had the power.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The chart confirms that the Neo-Cons got control of both Houses of Congress in 1995, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and singular control of our government from 2000 to 2006,</span> and yet, as the debt charts prove in Figures 1 & 3 above, even with all that power in 12 years they never controlled spending.



When Mr. Reagan was in office he had a Democratic House and a Republican Senate to deal with. But the “Great Communicator” used the bully pulpit to force both Houses of Congress to go along with his tax cuts <span style='font-size: 20pt'>on the promise that spending cuts would follow. However, the spending was never reduced. </span> The mixed-party Congress, with no presidential leadership, failed to follow through on reducing spending.



How did Mr. Clinton lead the nation into fiscal responsibility? <span style='font-size: 20pt'>When there was a Democratic run Congress he worked with them to put a policy in place that the Republicans dumped the minute Mr. Bush entered office. That reasonable and responsible policy was; if you cut taxes you must make a corresponding cut in spending. They called it “pay as you go.” </span> </div></div>

you can't drive! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyAgdCZJ4Cw)

Bush DOUBLED the Nat Debt!

He held a gun to Congress's head and forced them to give him a blank cheque to bail out the banks. It was no coincidence that he dropped this bombshell on everyone when it became clear that Obama would be the next President.

How much of that 6 Trillion Dollars did you see?

Q </div></div>

And what was the debt before all of the above secular progressive liberal presidents came to power?


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>0</span>

eg8r
09-13-2010, 06:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He held a gun to Congress's head and forced them to give him a blank cheque to bail out the banks.</div></div>Which gun was that? What was his control over the Democrats that forced them to spend like crazy in his last 2 years of control?

eg8r