Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many programs that have been utter failures, but even many conservatives don't have the stones to go after them. The Department of Education = complete failure. The War on Drugs = failure. Head Start = failure. I don't think many Republicans will even address these failures.
Conservatives want people to have jobs, because only jobs lift people out of poverty. Put this up against the liberal platform of, welfare stimulates, and we see for sure what stragegy is a failure.
If you cant list for me ONE town which has lifted themself out of poverty due to welfare spending, then you'll have to admit the Democratic plan does nothing but increase poverty, something we ALL should object to..
Democrats applaud poverty creation while shouting conservatives dont care.. Yeah, its as dumb as it sounds
What conservatives care if people below them have jobs? CEOs for big corporations constantly cut jobs to get big bonuses for themselves. I guess Rush has you fully carrying his water. Didn't conservatives oppose President Obama's stimulus bill that corrected the economy? We'd be in a depression if some dunderheaded Teabagger was pushing to make the rich richer like Herbert Hoover did.
What conservatives care if people below them have jobs? CEOs for big corporations constantly cut jobs to get big bonuses for themselves. I guess Rush has you fully carrying his water. Didn't conservatives oppose President Obama's stimulus bill that corrected the economy? We'd be in a depression if some dunderheaded Teabagger was pushing to make the rich richer like Herbert Hoover did.
The Stimulus did not help the average joe, it only bailed out the CEOs on Wall Street, and the politicians political buddies. The Stimulus did not correct the economy, it only bailed out the rich people you are complaining about. Obama continued Bush's policy of bailouts, look where it has got us. Best thing to have done in 2008 was to not get the government involved.
Herbert Hoover was not laissez-faire as most people mistake his policies for Calvin Coolidge's (the previous president). Hoover tried big government intervention and building projects on a grand scale, FDR just continued Hoover's policy and the results were the same, it did not work (Even a member of FDR's cabinet admitted this in 1939). The Depression did not end until after WW2.
What conservatives care if people below them have jobs? CEOs for big corporations constantly cut jobs to get big bonuses for themselves. I guess Rush has you fully carrying his water. Didn't conservatives oppose President Obama's stimulus bill that corrected the economy? We'd be in a depression if some dunderheaded Teabagger was pushing to make the rich richer like Herbert Hoover did.
uhm
the unstimulating stimulus (a nearly trillion dollar program) did nothing to correct the economy...the economy was on the road to correction before Obama was sworn in
to come out of a recession requires 2 quarters (6 months) of growth...just like going into a recession requires two quarters of decline.....the recession officially ended in june of 09...so therefore the GROWTH started before Obama was sworn in....
the stimulus did nothing...there was no-shovel ready jobs...
True, but the idea is to rob from the middle class ( that's what Quantitative Easement is all about, but I digress). The poor have their programs and the rich have resources.
Redistribution yields two classes: rich and poor.
which is the liberals goal...two classes : the poor serfs surviving on the scraps of welfare, and the rich liberal elite masters, domineering over the serfs
I will note that, while we certainly still have 'poverty', I don't think it is quite the same animal we had before 1964.
Back in those days a person in poverty had no access to any type of medical care (a particular problem for the elderly). At least today, many of the 'poor elderly' have some health care through Medicaid.
The food stamp program also has helped: one may still be utterly poor, but they don't have to go door-to-door (as I well recall people coming to our neighborhood) to beg for food.
I feel that the 'standard of living' for the impoverished has likewise risen. We certainly have enough threads here on CD concerning outrage about the 'poor' having television sets and other such luxuries.
Our church (from my youth) used to go out to the poor areas of town where you had people living in utter shacks, with no electricity and often no running water. Heat was provided by burning wood or whatever you could gather up to burn.
Perhaps the percentages have not changed that much, but I feel that the basic living standards have risen.
Our "Let's take care of the poor" has poor from all over the world coming here to live because with all of our social welfare program the US has the richest poor in the world.
There is nothing more frustrating than listening to liberal democrats argue with slightly less liberal republicans about the minutia of politics.
It will be the policies of both who will force the country inevitably into the true conservatism of Libertarianism but only after completely destroying the economy and causing unimaginable suffering.
The democrats support tyranny so long as that tyranny serves their purpose, just as republicans do.
Democrats have no moral objection to the stealing of other peoples money so long as they can rationalize it by pretending it is for a good cause.
Republicans have no moral objection to maintaining a corporate/government fascist system so long as it makes them money.
Both groups are criminals and work to enrichen themselves at the expense of others.
I think a very significant percentage of so-called Liberals KNOW that their stinky policies are very destructive and make people lives worse, more dependent on Bigbrother. But that is OK with these power-mad folks.....as long as they get more people pulling the D-lever.
In the short-run, "liberals" are willing to have decline and destruction....as long as it eventually ends up putting them in a position of unimpeachable control....so they can pass things like Osamacare2.0 (single-payer).
Why do conservatives pretend to care about what the poverty rate is? LBJ was the last economic liberal in the White House. Teabaggers like to pretend Obama is anything but a fiscal conservative even though he's kept income taxes lower than the Reagan era. The countries with the lowest poverty rates are socialist countries like Norway and Sweden. It's countries like China, India and the US where conservative economic policies make an unbelievably rich upper class with a majority of doomed plebians.
Zombie, I want some of what you're smoking. The definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Neither Sweden nor Norway are socialist. They are corporatist, same as the US. They have private ownership of the means of production, but with heavy government regulation thereof, sometimes to the point where the line between government and corporation is blurred.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but I digress). The poor have their programs and the rich have resources.
