Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Obama is fuming because his programs are an utter failure. I knew that he was counting on far better numbers. Perhaps 2 in 3 or 3 in 4.
1 posted on 12/15/2011 5:33:21 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
To: markomalley

Tipping point here we come.


2 posted on 12/15/2011 5:35:54 AM PST by Lady Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify,"

The safety nets don't prevent poverty, they simply spread it around and encourage it. Hell, people on welfare live better than I do.
3 posted on 12/15/2011 5:36:26 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

That must be the 50% paying no Federal Income Taxes......

The problem with government “charity” is the motivation to continually expand the dependent class.


4 posted on 12/15/2011 5:37:30 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; ...

This countries immigration policies both legal and illegal the past 15 years or so have been a disaster. We were told we needed all these immigrants to fill the unfilled jobs of our ‘growing economy’, presumed to keep wage inflation in check. Our trade policies need a close look at also.


6 posted on 12/15/2011 5:41:40 AM PST by sickoflibs (Man we are screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Our “poor” have big screen TVs and smart phones. And most of them are obese.

Most of the world would love to be “poor” in America.


7 posted on 12/15/2011 5:41:42 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

More likely this “study” was commissioned by Obama2012 for use in tv commercials to convince the voters we need four more years of the redistribution of wealth. After all, it is all the fault of the rich,and who better to punish the rich than the Democrats?
Just watch.


8 posted on 12/15/2011 5:42:48 AM PST by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Most of the rising costs of living are caused by government regulation and intervention in the private sector IMO.


9 posted on 12/15/2011 5:44:59 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

When you define the dividing line for poor and rich as the middle of the income bell curve, by definition half of the sample will be poor. What a crock.


14 posted on 12/15/2011 5:50:39 AM PST by oncebitten (Obama: "A Big Ole’ Hunk of Nothing on Two Thick Slices of Nada.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Does everyone agree that continuing to let in millions and millions more additional (legal and illegal) poor, unskilled, uneducated, Democrat immigrants from third world countries is going to help?


16 posted on 12/15/2011 5:52:13 AM PST by CGalen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

This piece is a report from the battlefield. The war on poverty has been lost. All the weapons created and used to fight and win the war have been for naught.

The war is lost

The Generals must be rounded up and eliminated.


21 posted on 12/15/2011 5:54:04 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty

There is so much fundamentally wrong with this I hardly know where to begin. Picking a random part "University of Michigan professor" OK what you have here is a taxpayer funded bureaucrat whose quantity of swill is determined by how much noise he makes. After all even though a public university trough is pretty big, you have an awful lot of hogs (academics) rooting, grunting and shoving to get as much as they can of it. SO he has every incentive to FIND non-existant problems in his field, and then to tout them as loudly as he can.

Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010

Actually by taking money away from the private sector and hence away from business and capital formation these programs INCREASED poverty by reducing job availability. The public policy moron assumes that those out of work are incapable of shifting from one form of employment to another and their only recourse is to reach into the pockets of their hardworking fellow citizens. To the extent that the indolent indigent have ABSOLUTELY NO MOTIVE TO LOOK FOR WORK as long as the so-called "safety nets" are funneling money their way he is correct. Why work when you can get paid to do nothing?

low-income families

A couple of things here first who decides what is "low income?" My income is less than the top 1% does that make me low income? How many of these "low income" families have

Finally what gives someone the moral imperative to say OK my life choices were not as good as yours, so I make considerably less money than you, but I'm entitled to exactly the same level of material things as you, so I'm going to use the police power of government to rob you and pay me? Not sure how anyone justifies this.

who specializes in poverty

This is worth about 500 words alone, but what's the point? It's for the children (Do I really need to add the sarcasm tag?)

22 posted on 12/15/2011 5:54:08 AM PST by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

That headline cannot be true in any real sense. One in two people are not poor or low income in any common sense use of those words. I don’t like the way things are headed either, and the case could be made that we are headed for disaster, but half the population is not poor or low income. Someone sent me an email the other day with photos form the Great Depression. THOSE people were poor and low income. And that was within the memory of some living today.


24 posted on 12/15/2011 5:55:57 AM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
In order to create more "poor" people, the government has quietly changed the functional definition of poverty:

"About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure."

"The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.

Always look for the hidden agenda, folks.

26 posted on 12/15/2011 6:00:08 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010

Unlikely. Especially since those who make it their profession to create poverty statistics like to boost those numbers, so welfare and tax credits (applied after the adjusted gross income is calculated on the tax form) are usually ignored. In fact, since those programs generally suppress the value of work (at least on the books), many of them probably increase poverty as counted by the poverty pimps.

29 posted on 12/15/2011 6:04:15 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Herman Cain: possibly the escapee most dangerous to the Democrats since Frederick Douglass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

The deomocratic strategy is brilliant. Destroy the middle class, put 1/2 of the country in poverty and who do they go for help? The democrats, of course, who will rob the successful to pay for their minions of dependents.


32 posted on 12/15/2011 6:08:18 AM PST by 2nd Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

“The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. “

The government keeps adjusting the threshold to incorporate more and more folks, expanding its sphere of influence.


33 posted on 12/15/2011 6:10:10 AM PST by Makana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

As I heard or read somewhere, either here or at church, globally speaking, if you flush your toilet with drinking water, you aren’t poor.


35 posted on 12/15/2011 6:11:55 AM PST by tnlibertarian (Things are so bad now, Kenyans are saying Obama was born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

I guess most of us on this forum now are members of the unwashed 50%. Pretty soon, the Marxists will just assign everyone of us a member of the bottom 50% to clothe, feed, take shopping, pay for college, fetch lottery tickets and ripple. They can call it the Siamese Plan. “Hey Comrade, I just got home from the factory. Are you ready to go to Best Buy for the new router and iPad? Then we can swing by Taco Bell and share a burrito grande.”


38 posted on 12/15/2011 6:16:49 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
"Obama... was counting on far better numbers. Perhaps 2 in 3 or 3 in 4."

Thirty something years of open borders' importation of third world poverty (tens of millions of illegals and even more of their offspring) has got us to 1 in 2 today.

But, fear not Obama! The continuation of the open-borders/path-to-citizenship/humane/not-heartless/amnesty bullshit of the democrats, and too many republicans & "conservatives," - even here on FR - will get us to the "2 in 3 or 3 in 4" soon enough.

That's when the leftwing will reach the demographic condition of pre-Castro Cuba, pre-Chavez Venezuela, etc., and America will be their prize.

39 posted on 12/15/2011 6:18:26 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
If that's true, then the government "redistributing" what the non-poor people have will just make everybody poor.

Then again, equal-outcome is the goal, and that means smashing everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

40 posted on 12/15/2011 6:22:22 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (FOREIGN AID: A transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson