- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
They have also succeeded in importing new waves of dependent democrat voters. They define success as they number of people dependent on govt. :doh
Paul Ryans first job was at McDonalds, and he worked for a construction company.
Tell us about Obama and Hillary's jobs. :2wave:
`
My point went zooming over your head my friend....here's the original statement;
The entire statement is false, if not an outright lie. Surly only a complete fool would agree with it. You reply only voiced more unproven suppositions, again, with no facts.
`
`
`It's not a lie.How many times has the Obama White House and certain Democrats in Congress gloated and were proud to announce publicly on how many people today are receiving food stamps ?If Democrats were serious about fighting poverty, why do they support importing poverty from third world countries ? Since the IRA of 1965 all we have been allowing is poverty to enter America. May explain why Democrats refuse to support any Republican comprehensive immigration reform that calls for securing our borders first before initiating awarding criminals with amnesty.
`
Proof? Facts? You provided none.
I don't see a "War on Poverty", I see a "War for Money".
Indeed, to those on the that side of the political spectrum, the success of the “War on Poverty” is surely measured by how many votes it buys for their side from those who have been trapped into endless dependence on government handouts.
Not only do the poor vote "correctly" but they support candidates that increase government spending and power. All "wars" have their supporters inside govenrment and entire indistries that depend on the resulting government spending. Low wage workers, and those that employ them, now enjoy the moronic "safety net" spending that supplements those wages - why pay a "living wage" if the government will do so (instead?) using other people's money?
The only measure of success is in how many people can improve their own lives, and rise above poverty. If you are merely being funded, then you haven't fixed anything- just thrown money at it. The basic and underlying problem is still there.
I was listening to some talk show the other day, Hannity I think and he had Paul Ryan as a guest. They were speaking about the war on poverty and talking about how its success is measured. I thought that would make an interesting poll. What would be the best indicators of success (or failure)? I'll make it multiple choice.
Working on the poll, options will be;
1) By money allocated for social programs, e.g. the more the better
2) By helping the most people possible live more comfortably regardless of their income or lack of it (I may need to shorten this one).
3) By how many people are actually able to get out of poverty
4) Other
I think there is some truth to that regarding the Democrat politicians, but most, just ordinary liberal people I know would like to see people provide for themselves where possible. The disagreement between ideologies, I think, what "where possible" means. Conservatives tend to think that "where possible" means just that, if it's possible it's what should be expected. If it takes two jobs or selling your car, then that's what you do. Liberals, from my experience, tend to be in favor of subsidizing "comfortable" living with the hopes that that person will take advantage of that time, maybe get some sort of skill or job training so that they don't have to take two jobs or sell the car or whatever.
This was supposed to be an adult conservation ....I think poorly of such childish remarks .
If only that did work. If people rise out of poverty they might be a tad grateful to their helpers. They might come to embrace socialism full stop. But the poor are kept in their place because there are very few in power who actually want to see this end. Why? Because they're bought off by their corporate buddies, who only want to exploit the bottom 99%.
As this likely includes you, it's rather amazing you don't realize you're enabling your oppressors with this uber compassionate "let them starve" mantra. Guess what, *many* full time workers are poor and barely afford to get by.
The nice thing about this is that with everyone trying to do best for themselves we have done a huge job fighting poverty on a global scale.
It's simply an incorrect way of phrasing a situation. Nobody is intentionally trying to make anyone else poor, as much as they're trying to make themselves rich. They'll just do it the expense of others and say, "that's the way the game is played." And though thru this system we've raised the quality of life for the global majority, we seem to be hitting a tipping point of going over the peak back down towards a struggle for the masses. And it's going to get messy.
`
My point went zooming over your head my friend....here's the original statement;
The entire statement is false, if not an outright lie. Surly only a complete fool would agree with it. You reply only voiced more unproven suppositions, again, with no facts.
`
`
Scuttlebutt is Obama as a teenager to get money to buy Maui Waui, Obama had a part time job scooping ice cream. I think he got fired.
As for Hillary's early career.
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff:
Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
Hillary Rodham Clinton History
I don't see a "War on Poverty", I see a "War for Money".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?