If you like your health coverage you can keep your health coverage. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Those were lies and it's pretty self explanatory.
Just today as he was speaking on the college shooting yesterday he said it proven fact that places with stricter gun laws are safer. Are you serious?!?!? Look at Chicago, Detroit, New York, Baltimore. They have some of the strictest, if not the strictest gun laws in the nation, and they're also the most dangerous. So either he got his sources wrong, or he is lying to push his agenda on low information voters.
He claims ISIS is not Islamic for Gods sake!!!

 

I never said anything about the rich. I think it was obvious to anyone with common sense that I was referring to the middle class and poor....

 

You don't know anything about economics first there has not been job growth under Obama the labor force is the smallest it's been since 1977 which means millions of people have been unemployed for more than a year. 2. The stock market is up because the Federal Reserve keeps pumping money into the system not because retail sales are up retail sales haven't gone up in more than a decade. 3. If the economy is doing so well why hasn't the FED raised interest rates? usually in a bad economy the Fed lowers interest rates then once it turns around they raise the rates. 4. The top 10 poorest cities in the country over the last 50 years have been controlled by Democrats 94% of the time. 5. In 1920 Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy worse than the great depression their response was to cut taxes and cut spending by half and limit welfare to orphans widows and people who could not physically work. They orchestrated the roaring 20s by 1928 when Calvin Coolidge left office we had a 1% poverty rate which is the lowest we've ever had. In 1964 we had a 5% poverty rate and LBJ started the war on poverty 22Trillion dollars later our poverty rate is at 15%. Most of our economic problems were created by Democrats Medicare social security and most of our debt came from Dem policies so is the FED which is devaluing our dollar and the regulation that has driven away jobs overseas. So don't post some articles and tell me how the economy works you don't know what you're talking about.

 

My opening statement compared the economic performance of Republican and Democrat administrations since the beginning of the twentieth century. President Obama has been a disappointment, but he has had to deal with Republicans in Congress who have tried to stop everything he attempted to do.

 

Perhaps they should have "tried" harder.....

 

In 1920, when Warren G. Harding was elected president, the unemployment rate was 5.2%.

In 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, the unemployment rate was 23.6%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

In 1920 the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $5,372.

In 1932 the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $4,901.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

From 1920 to 1928, which was Calvin Coolidge's last full year in office, unemployment declined by 1.0%.

From 1932 to 1940, which was the last year of Franklin Roosevelt's second term, unemployment declined by 9.0%

From 1920 to 1928 the per capita GDP in 1996 dollars grew by $2,067.

From 1932 to 1940 the per capita GDP in 1996 dollars grew by $2,522.

 

The Washington Post July 11, 2012

In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/

 

Why, lets see what that looks like, shall we? You know, according to your source...............

And as long as we're looking, lets see what that 4-5% reduction in the poverty rate has cost us. You know, as a percentage of GDP. By the way, I don't subscribe to the idea that Medicare and Social Security should be included in a discussion of the war on poverty; to the extent that it helps people stay out of poverty ignores the intent of social security and medicare in the first place.


And finally, lets look at who benefited the most from Johnson's war on poverty;
If you can accept the government's definition of races, and ignore the errors inherent in identifying race in the first place we discover that the blacks benefited the most.

 

shootersa,

The persistence of poverty in the United States has not happened because of what the government has done, but because of what the government has not done, and because of what the government has allowed to happen. These are excerpts from an article that appeared in the October 4, 2015 Sunday New York Times.

----------

By PAUL THEROUX

In a wish to get to grips with local mystagogies and obfuscations I have spent the past three years traveling in the Deep South, usually on back roads, mainly in the smaller towns...

Take a Delta town such as Hollandale, Miss. Two years ago, the entire tax base of this community of around 3,500 was (so the now-deceased and much-mourned mayor Melvin Willis told me) less than $300,000...

When Hollandale’s citizens lost their jobs in the cotton fields to mechanization they found work nearby, in Greenville and elsewhere, in factories that made clothes, bikes, tools and much else — for big brands like Fruit of the Loom and Schwinn...

Big companies have always sought cheaper labor, moving from North to South in the United States, looking for the hungriest, the most desperate, the least organized, the most exploitable. It has been an American story. What had begun as domestic relocations went global...

The strategy of getting rich on cheap labor in foreign countries while offering a sop to America’s poor with charity seems to me a wicked form of indirection. If these wealthy chief executives are such visionaries, why don’t they understand the simple fact that what people want is not a handout along with the uplift ditty but a decent job?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocrisy-of-helping-the-poor.html?_r=0

 

Wow! I would have thought a genius like you, the one who pretty much considers himself the "smartest man on the forum", would know the difference between percent and percentage point.

(Sigh) Another shattered image.

If the unemployment rate fell 9.0% (instead of 9 percentage points) during Roosevelt's watch, it would have still been over 21%. Likewise, if it fell 1.0% (instead of 1 percentage point) during Harding's watch, it would have been 5.1% when he left office.

 

Balancing the budget is just common sense, and allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money means I get to spend more of it. It all seems like common sense to me. Being in debt to your eyeballs with no way to pay for it is just dumb, and it's the democrats way of life.

 

The NY Times huh? Isn't this the same rag that just did 6 retractions with regards to the Melania Trump story????

Getting the facts wrong, seems to be the only thing the NY Times is consistent at....

The NY Times and you obviously have a lot in common....

 

The New York Times is one of the most prestigious newspapers in the English language.

When The New York Times makes a mistake it admits it.

 

How can we balance the budget while cutting taxes? Which government spending programs do you want to cut or eliminate?

 

Says who???

 

The New York Times (NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by the New York Times Company. It has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization.[5][6][7]

The paper's print version has the largest circulation of any metropolitan newspaper in the United States, and the second-largest circulation overall, behind The Wall Street Journal. It is ranked 39th in the world by circulation...

The New York Times has established links regionally with 16 bureaus in the New York region, nationally, with 11 bureaus within the US, and globally, with 26 foreign news bureaus.

The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper. The prize is awarded for excellence in journalism in a range of categories.[5]

It has also won four Peabody Awards, including a personal one for Jack Gould in 1956.[63]

 

Copied & pasted (but not attributed), word for word, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

You forgot a few words about that oh-so-prestigious paper, though. (As long as we're copying and pasting...)

Plagiarism
In May 2003, Times reporter Jayson Blair was forced to resign from the newspaper after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories. Some critics contended that Blair's race was a major factor in his hiring and in The New York Times‍ ' initial reluctance to fire him.[144]

Duke University lacrosse case
The newspaper was criticized for largely reporting the prosecutors' version of events in the 2006 Duke lacrosse case.[145][146] Suzanne Smalley of Newsweek criticized the newspaper for its "credulous"[147] coverage of the charges of rape against Duke University lacrosse players. Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson, in their book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, write: "at the head of the guilt-presuming pack, The New York Times vied in a race to the journalistic bottom with trash-TV talk shows."[148]

Quotes out of context
In February 2009, a Village Voice music blogger accused the newspaper of using "chintzy, ad-hominem allegations" in an article on British Tamil music artist M.I.A. concerning her activism against the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka.[149][150] M.I.A. criticized the paper in January 2010 after a travel piece rated post-conflict Sri Lanka the "#1 place to go in 2010".[151][152] In June 2010, The New York Times Magazine published a correction on its cover article of M.I.A., acknowledging that the interview conducted by current W editor and then-Times Magazine contributor Lynn Hirschberg contained a recontextualization of two quotes.[153][154] In response to the piece, M.I.A. broadcast Hirschberg's phone number and secret audio recordings from the interview via her Twitter and website.[155][156]

Delayed publication of 2005 NSA warrantless surveillance story
The New York Times has been criticized for the 13-month delay of the December 2005 story revealing the U.S. National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program.[157] Ex-NSA officials blew the whistle on the program to journalists James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, who presented an investigative article to the newspaper in November 2004, weeks before America's presidential election. Contact with former agency officials began the previous summer.[158]

Former NYT executive editor Bill Keller decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration and being advised not to do so by Times Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman. Keller explained the silence's rationale in an interview with the newspaper in 2013, stating "Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune".[159]

In 2014, PBS Frontline interviewed Risen and Lichtblau, who said that the newspaper's plan was to not publish the story at all. "The editors were furious at me", Risen said to the program. "They thought I was being insubordinate." Risen wrote a book about the mass surveillance revelations after the Times declined the piece's publication, and only released it after Risen told them that he would publish the book. Another reporter told NPR that the newspaper "avoided disaster" by ultimately publishing the story.[160]

Anti-Irish slurs
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, The New York Times published an article reporting the deaths of six Irish students staying in Berkeley, California, when the balcony they were standing on collapsed, the paper's story insinuating that they were to blame for the collapse. The paper states that the Irish students coming to the US on J1 visas are an "embarrassment to Ireland".[161] The Irish Prime Minister and former President of Ireland criticised the newspaper for "being insensitive and inaccurate" in its handling of the story.

 

"The persistence of poverty in the United States has not happened because of what the government has done, but because of what the government has not done, and because of what the government has allowed to happen. These are excerpts from an article that appeared in the October 4, 2015 Sunday New York Times."​

Well, you and I are going to struggle to find some common ground here. The Government has been spending about 4% of GDP fighting poverty since Johnson took time from running the Viet Nam thingy into the ground to get his war on poverty thing up and running.
That's 4 % of GDP.
How much would you have them spend, and in what way?

The success of the program should be self evident; minorities have benefited the most, which I think was the intent in the first place. For an average expenditure of about $400 per poverty level citizen per year, those under the poverty line are raised, if ever so slightly, above the poverty line.

No one, not Republicans, Democrats, big business, or those pesky tea bagger rascals, wants to see poverty rates increase. The debate centers around fraud and abuse and how to make the programs more effective at finding and helping those in poverty.

I will not get into the way the Government defines poverty other than to note that it is a moving target, defined with a complicated formula that lets one define poverty however best fits the situation.
I will not get into the fraud and abuse issue, except to note that by all accounts, the fraud and abuse in the welfare programs is about the same as for all Government entitlement programs.

I can see where the NY Times article strikes a chord with you; it demonizes big business and fails to look at both sides of the issue; it cherry picks and demonizes and in the end is pretty much meaningless to the question at hand.

The fact is, business is the employer who pays the wages that lifts those in poverty out of poverty.
Government, no matter how well intentioned or funded, can do that job as efficiently as business can. You see, when business hires someone below the poverty line both business and the individual benefit. Of course, the individual has to perform some meaningful job, but that gives them confidence and motivation to further improve their status.

Government programs don't require some benefit in return for the entitlement. No one benefits; not the taxpayer, not the government, and not the recipient of the entitlement. The individual finds that entitlements are really a chain holding them down and stealing their self worth for a pittance. Judas could probably explain how that works.

We will never eliminate poverty in the US.
Not because the programs are failures, but because poverty is continually redefined to fit political expediency.

 

WTF, why is it that the only way this post showed up was in the "Forums" cover page?

It didn't show up when I refreshed the page.

Something is amiss, and it ain't deidre.

 

Okay, now I get it.

Because I have DL on ignore, his threads do not show up on my GD threads page.

Hmmm, this might be a good thng.