Hey conservatives, THIS is what you support???

cawacko said:
Based on the graph you posted prior it showed (I believe) a 15% poverty rate when the War on Poverty legislation was passed and a 15% poverty rate today. I'm not sure how we would judge improvement but those are the numbers.

As far as what the legislation proposed to do I think we almost all can agree that what legislation proposes or claims it will do often turns out different than what it actually does.
Click to expand...

The chart I posted came from the Freak's link

poverty.jpg


I went to the site Freak got the chart from, it is the blog of Mark J. Perry from the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank. The same AEI that fired former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum for telling the truth about Republicans during the health care debate.

Directly below the chart, Perry posted:

According to the recent Census Bureau report

BUT, when you go to that Census report Perry linked to, there is a DIFFERENT chart...

povertyrate2.jpg
 
Bfgrn said:
The chart I posted came from the Freak's link

poverty.jpg


I went to the site Freak got the chart from, it is the blog of Mark J. Perry from the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank. The same AEI that fired former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum for telling the truth about Republicans during the health care debate.

Directly below the chart, Perry posted:

According to the recent Census Bureau report

BUT, when you go to that Census report Perry linked to, there is a DIFFERENT chart...

povertyrate2.jpg
Click to expand...

Based on this chart is looks like the rate is about the same as the other chart, 15% in 1965 and 14.3% in 2009. The number of people in poverty obviously rose but so did the population So it looks like we have essentially the same percentage of the population in poverty today (or 2009 to be specific) as we did in 1965 when the War on Poverty was getting going.
 
Alias said:
Seriously. What is being said by both sides is called figures of speech. You know that. No one is really going to shoot the President and no one is going to get hurt by republicans. Do you really expect rational people to fall for that crap?
Click to expand...

I wish I could believe that, but I don't. Today's Republicans have morphed into domestic terrorists. What they did during the health care debate was criminal and the radical legislation they are proposing WILL hurt people, and even cause American deaths.
 
Bfgrn said:
I wish I could believe that, but I don't. Today's Republicans have morphed into domestic terrorists. What they did during the health care debate was criminal and the radical legislation they are proposing WILL hurt people, and even cause American deaths.
Click to expand...

Oh, for crying out loud, stop it. You're scaring the children. Honestly, peddle that crap to someone else. You and Dumb Debbie need to get a room. No one is going to lose their SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Military pay, etc, etc. Stop scaring people with that crap and stop acting so silly and playing with people's emotions. We take in 200 billion every month, which is more than enough to meet our entitlement obligations.
 
These republicans will only shoot snot out of their noses laughing at the fiscally clueless turbo-lobs who's answer is to spend even more. Seriously snl is not as funny.
 
Alias said:
Oh, for crying out loud, stop it. You're scaring the children. Honestly, peddle that crap to someone else. You and Dumb Debbie need to get a room. No one is going to lose their SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Military pay, etc, etc. Stop scaring people with that crap and stop acting so silly and playing with people's emotions. We take in 200 billion every month, which is more than enough to meet our entitlement obligations.
Click to expand...

S&M
 
Alias said:
Oh, for crying out loud, stop it. You're scaring the children. Honestly, peddle that crap to someone else. You and Dumb Debbie need to get a room. No one is going to lose their SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Military pay, etc, etc. Stop scaring people with that crap and stop acting so silly and playing with people's emotions. We take in 200 billion every month, which is more than enough to meet our entitlement obligations.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about the debt ceiling, I am talking about Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher plan and the House Republican's Cut, Cap, Balance Act.
 
The Dude said:
These republicans will only shoot snot out of their noses laughing at the fiscally clueless turbo-lobs who's answer is to spend even more. Seriously snl is not as funny.
Click to expand...

See if your little pea of a brain can dissect this wisdom?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Let me ask you a question pea brain. Is there any OTHER way of decreasing our debt other that spending cuts?
 
Bfgrn said:
See if your little pea of a brain can dissect this wisdom?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in
Let me ask you a question pea brain.

Says the dropout salesman who's idea of a gotcha is showing a graph with zero increase over 40 years to show a gain. Snl should sign you asshole. You get your ass kicked by yourself and stay around and ask other people to kick you. Sorry u putting the kick me sign on your own back is plenty funny enough for me.
Click to expand...
 
The Dude said:
Bfgrn said:
See if your little pea of a brain can dissect this wisdom?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in
Let me ask you a question pea brain.

Says the dropout salesman who's idea of a gotcha is showing a graph with zero increase over 40 years to show a gain. Snl should sign you asshole. You get your ass kicked by yourself and stay around and ask other people to kick you. Sorry u putting the kick me sign on your own back is plenty funny enough for me.
Click to expand...

Why are you so afraid to answer even a simple question? Are you THAT insecure? You are a poser. You have consistently cut & run every time you can't just spew your broken record slurs.
Click to expand...
 
cawacko said:
Based on this chart is looks like the rate is about the same as the other chart, 15% in 1965 and 14.3% in 2009. The number of people in poverty obviously rose but so did the population So it looks like we have essentially the same percentage of the population in poverty today (or 2009 to be specific) as we did in 1965 when the War on Poverty was getting going.
Click to expand...

but but but.... that isn't his point.... his point was a feeble attempt to attack the author of the blog and then an even more feeble attempt to attack the data by calling the charts different. The charts are obviously different as one includes the total number of people in poverty along with the percentage while the one I linked to showed just the percentage (which is the real number for an apples to apples comparison due to the population increasing as you mentioned).

Yet Bfgrn is to much of an idiot to see that the chart shows the SAME fucking data.
 
Superfreak said:
but but but.... that isn't his point.... his point was a feeble attempt to attack the author of the blog and then an even more feeble attempt to attack the data by calling the charts different. The charts are obviously different as one includes the total number of people in poverty along with the percentage while the one I linked to showed just the percentage (which is the real number for an apples to apples comparison due to the population increasing as you mentioned).

Yet Bfgrn is to much of an idiot to see that the chart shows the SAME fucking data.
Click to expand...

WHY didn't your blogger post the chart he provided a link to? Optics?

And you are too much of an idiot to believe an initiative that helped millions of Americans did NOTHING. And only a true MORON would believe we live in a vacuum where that same initiative born in 1964 has been carried out as if Shriver was still alive and running it. And that subsequent administrations didn't try to undermine it, or that other policies didn't undermine it.

IF you recall my original premise, it is FACT:

During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)
 
Bfgrn said:
WHY didn't your blogger post the chart he provided a link to? Optics?

And you are too much of an idiot to believe an initiative that helped millions of Americans did NOTHING. And only a true MORON would believe we live in a vacuum where that same initiative born in 1964 has been carried out as if Shriver was still alive and running it. And that subsequent administrations didn't try to undermine it, or that other policies didn't undermine it.

IF you recall my original premise, it is FACT:

During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)
Click to expand...

What philsophy did the Clinton Administration employ? The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was said by to some that it was going to hurt and impoverish millions of children and single mothers. I think it has been shown that's not the case. Did you support it at the time?
 
Bfgrn said:
WHY didn't your blogger post the chart he provided a link to? Optics?
Click to expand...

You will have to ask him. I would guess and say because he wanted to show the data that was relevant.

And you are too much of an idiot to believe an initiative that helped millions of Americans did NOTHING. And only a true MORON would believe we live in a vacuum where that same initiative born in 1964 has been carried out as if Shriver was still alive and running it. And that subsequent administrations didn't try to undermine it, or that other policies didn't undermine it.
Click to expand...

I have never stated that there weren't people that benefited from the programs. The problem is you seem to have trouble comprehending the FACT that the 'war on poverty' FAILED.

AGAIN, if you intended to discuss JUST the time the program existed under Johnson/Shriver.... then WHY did you highlight the years the poverty rate declined under Clinton.

Of course future Congresses and Presidents put their own stamp on the program. Just as they did in the failed war on drugs. That doesn't change the fact that BOTH 'wars' were complete failures.

IF you recall my original premise, it is FACT:

During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)
Click to expand...

Which is blatantly FALSE. Or are you going to pretend the SIX percent decline in the poverty rate PRIOR to the war on poverty implemented by Johnson and run by Shriver didn't exist??? Since then the poverty rate has bounced in a range based on ECONOMIC conditions.

ALSO... you pretend that somehow Clinton reverted back to 'the same philosophy'.... that is complete bullshit. The poverty rate declined under Clinton because the ECONOMY BOOMED during the 90's due to the Tech/internet/telecom/biotech explosion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top