Iraq Vet Senator: I will not be lectured on the military by 'Cadet Bone Spurs'

[DTB2]

ALL THE THINGS your side has been trying to cut & eliminate which is precisely my point.

War on poverty implemented 1964, Roe v Wade 1973. How's that working for the poor?

I know, it's all the OTHER conservative policies that are keeping the poor down. Amirite

 

[DTB2]

Most of constitutional rights don't require citizenship, due process for instance. Good thing immigration is an administrative issue and not criminal, thus due process does not apply. That's a conservative concept, when did they become the lunatic fringe.

But not the unborn, that's the part you like. Lunatic fringe is right.

 

[exGOPer]

War on poverty implemented 1964, Roe v Wade 1973. How's that working for the poor?

I know, it's all the OTHER conservative policies that are keeping the poor down. Amirite

Correlation is not causation.

From your chart-

Poverty spikes upward for the first time under Nixon, after removing the US from the Gold Standard.

Returns to it’s lowest since then under Clinton. One could look at this data and conclude that Republican monetary policy benefiting the rich has sapped money from the economy that would have been circulated, engaging in the multiplier effect and creating jobs, and concentrated that money at the top in investments that don’t create jobs.

Just because it all happens after the great society programs doesn’t in any way indicate they are the cause. Real worker pay continued upward until 1980 since then it has not increased much at all.

 

[exGOPer]

But not the unborn, that's the part you like. Lunatic fringe is right.

So who has more rights, the unborn or the one already born? Does the rights of the unborn supersede the rights of the born, the already born don't have property rights but the unborn do?

What is so lunatic about this? This is the libertarian position.Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term by a government who would take no responsibility for it's nurture. It's a very simple question.

 

[DTB2]

Just because it all happens after the great society programs doesn’t in any way indicate they are the cause.

Who said it was the cause? It certainly isn't the cure. Yet, POOF the money is gone anyway.

 

[DTB2]

So who has more rights, the unborn or the one already born? Does the rights of the unborn supersede the rights of the born, the already born don't have property rights but the unborn do?

What is so lunatic about this? This is the libertarian position.Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term by a government who would take no responsibility for it's nurture. It's a very simple question.

UGGH.

 

[exGOPer]

Who said it was the cause? It certainly isn't the cure. Yet, POOF the money is gone anyway.

There is a 3.5% decrease from 1959 to 1964, but from 1964 to 1969 there is a 5.2% decrease. The next five year period has a smaller decrease, but if your theory that government assistance actually keeps most people in poverty rather than helping them out, the graph would show poverty rising from 1964 to 1973, not falling at an unprecedented rate.

So yes, money is a cure for poverty.

 

[exGOPer]

UGGH.

I am trying to be logical, to say that the unborn have right but the born doesn't makes sense. The whole question is who gets to make that decision - the government or the individual.

Strangely, you choose the government over the individual which is antithesis of a conservative argument. A true conservative will resist more powers being given to the state over individuals.

 

[DTB2]

There is a 3.5% decrease from 1959 to 1964, but from 1964 to 1969 there is a 5.2% decrease. The next five year period has a smaller decrease, but if your theory that government assistance actually keeps most people in poverty rather than helping them out, the graph would show poverty rising from 1964 to 1973, not falling at an unprecedented rate.

So yes, money is a cure for poverty.

That you don't see the biggest decline was leading into 1964 and then basically flat with some noise since is either deliberate or ignorant.

 

[exGOPer]

That you don't see the biggest decline was leading into 1964 and then basically flat with some noise since is either deliberate or ignorant.

Yes, there was a 7% decline after Great Society programs that can be attributed to it, GS made a 7% difference which is a neat accomplishment for a program so thoroughly butchered by conservatives over the years. By the way, you may want to check poverty levels for seniors before and after Medicare which your party voters love.