U.S. Poverty On Track To Rise To Highest Since 1960s
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
I'm against the war on poverty as currently practiced, ie, throw money at the problem without concern about family structure, respect for work, and lack of motivation to get out of poverty.
Don't give (most of) them money, give them a temporary job, even a fake one, and they'll climb out of it with new skills and self respect.
Stop telling them it's alright to perpetuate the fatherless family... over 70% of black kids born out of wedlock, vs less than 20% in the early 60s, 5-6 generations of kids without father in the house, etc.
Stop illegal immigration, everybody should respect the law.
Make sure they understand that nobody wants to hire an illiterate highschool dropout with a violence record.
Everybody who asks for welfare has to pass a drug test...etc etc,
We all know what needs to be done, a good start was accomplished in the 90s, but this administration is fighting to reverse the progress.
You are kidding right? Just because it is mandatory means it isn't included as part of the government budget to combat poverty? You even called it the social safety net, what the hell do you think SSI is all about???
What a piece of tortured logic, I have no idea how you guys even arrive at such a stunted thought process other than it is religion.
some did, Soviet Union and Sweden from 1970-1995 for example. The only difference is everyone was becoming impoverished. Sweden turned it around by electing conservatives to fix their mess, not some liberal pothead.
More generous is hard to define sometimes becase people seem to think healthcare is everything. For the old and very young, few hand out as much as we do. It is also hard to compare the US against most nations simply by our size. We cannot export our way out of a shithole like sweden did, we don't have high oil revenue per capita like Norway and Kuwait. The other defining characteristic is that the US is fast losing its white european majority, so the most valid future comparison would be Brazil.
The thing is that the pareto principle, not liberal egalitarianism, is far more accurate. There will always be human trash. We are the same people that walked around 50,000 years ago and it's time to realize that the real failure is believing some fantasy liberal government program is going to alter nature.
I'm shocked that Mr. Hopey Changey gets no blame. Is it still Bush's fault?
Now you're insulting the man's intelligence wrt his main claim to re-election: why would it EVER stop being Bush's fault? What else can this man claim as an accomplishment, other than pointing this to the public under all circumstances a few million times?
Of course, there was the tsunami too, but, hey, pobody's nerfect, right?
here is a tip:
Don't have children if you are living in poverty.
Don't have children if you are living in poverty.
But the gov pays to have the kids.
Obama has had his entire adult life to polish this act of appearing smart without doing much. He's the equivalent of a televangelist for the left.
He either is starting to really believe that is is smarter beacuse of liberal fawning, or if he is honest he must look in the mirror, take a hit, and laugh at the comedy of it all.
Have you ever really listened to him closely? I don't get it at all.