So.......Bush hates the balcks and the poor.......

[Alex Mogilny]

Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.
In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't, because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply America under President Bush has turned its back oban the poor, but it's absolute nonsense.

Even in the midst of the war on terror, this country's spending a massive amount of money trying to help the poor. So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others, that's why.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Alex Mogilny
Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was
$368 billion dollars would make a big dent. Why don't we see it?

Can you say graft and corruption?

FIGURES LIE

If Clinton had a smaller budget for "poverty entitlements" (where do you get your fucking "wag the dog" views?) then why was the country so much better?

And I don't even like Clintion the commie socialist globalist.

In fact, after the former Republican adminstrations of Reagan and Bush I, it was Clinton who left two terms in office with a budget SURPLUS in the billions which Bush II has "grafted and corrupted" an even larger "robbery" of the American taxpayer than ever before with a monstrous deficit greater than Reagan and Bush I COMBINED.

You propagana peeps are funny with your lies and slants of the truth.


:spank:

[thome]

Whew! nuf said, dont we all!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by thome
Whew! nuf said, dont we all! That fucking asshole is an out of work, laid off teacher from all of the feds "entitlement" programs to the poor cities which never got to the poor.

It's just sick.


:spank:

[thome]

Well stop bitchin get up there and save him from the evil doers!!

Make a difference not a example of him .

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker
$368 billion dollars would make a big dent. Why don't we see it?

Can you say graft and corruption?

FIGURES LIE

If Clinton had a smaller budget for "poverty entitlements" (where do you get your fucking "wag the dog" views?) then why was the country so much better?

And I don't even like Clintion the commie socialist globalist.

In fact, after the former Republican adminstrations of Reagan and Bush I, it was Clinton who left two terms in office with a budget SURPLUS in the billions which Bush II has "grafted and corrupted" an even larger "robbery" of the American taxpayer than ever before with a monstrous deficit greater than Reagan and Bush I COMBINED.

You propagana peeps are funny with your lies and slants of the truth.


:spank:

these numbers need to be adjusted for inflation to have a true picture.

[Horseskin]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
these numbers need to be adjusted for inflation to have a true picture. Fuck off you stupid fucking piece of shit turd.

[DrMaddVibe]

Mo money

[Cathedral]

How about we cancel all entitlement programs and build more industry and provide jobs for people?

I've been on welfare and having the Federal Government up my ass all the time was NOT a pleasant experience.

Some folks can relax and just cash their checks and be happy, I felt like less of a man every time i went to the bank.
Not to mention when i had to use food stamps to feed my family.

No sir, welfare ain't no place for me and i'd sooner die than to stand in that line again.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Cathedral
How about we cancel all entitlement programs and build more industry and provide jobs for people?

I've been on welfare and having the Federal Government up my ass all the time was NOT a pleasant experience.

Some folks can relax and just cash their checks and be happy, I felt like less of a man every time i went to the bank.
Not to mention when i had to use food stamps to feed my family.

No sir, welfare ain't no place for me and i'd sooner die than to stand in that line again. Good points, Cathedral.

Yes, this is the way it should be done. However, the first problem to be worked out is the perception that government is creating jobs that should be in the private sector. Can't do that. The arguement is worthy to work out a solution and solutions to this have been worked out before. The government financed the private sector during the depression to build the Hoover Damn.

With a country that still needs electricty alternate energy "works" projects, performed by privated sector contractors (everybody wins) to build wind power plants and remove this country from dependence on foreign oil.

The second problem isn't so easy. I can see in my mind's eye right now truly infirm people on "welfare." Unfortunately, there is too large a population that is healthy enough to work an average job and build those projects and work for those contractors, but they won't.

The reason they won't is because it's easier to say, "I've got a bad back." And collect the check without working for it. And no doctor or X-ray can find anything wrong with the man or woman other than their complaint of ill health.

Those are the problems and the types of people who've created this ongoing problem in any country using socialism. (sic)

RUDE AWAKENING

Socialism has got to go after the next world war that we're on the heals of. No more of this stuff. After the war YOU'LL PULL YOUR OWN WEIGHT, because there won't be a government left to pay out a welfare check.

Oh my, a world without socialism. What will the UK do?:)


:spank:

[jcook11]

Don't forget the elderly and sick Bush personally pulled the plug on my granny I gave him a hellova fight ,but chimps have the strenghth of ten humans

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Horseskin
Fuck off you stupid fucking piece of shit turd.

You are to fucking stupid to argue with.

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
You are to fucking stupid to argue with.

http://davensjournal.com/images/Kettlitis.gif

[Nitro Express]

You don't get the people out of the slums, you get the slums out of the people. If the family unit is in jeapardy, the govt. can do very little. Why blacks have a higher degree of poverty is because their family situation is caotic. Whites with caotic families fare just as bad. Asians tend to do better because their family units are strong and a work ethic is taught.

Putting people in workcamps is a short-term solution. No, we need to go back to family values because most the kids in those gangs have no fathers and some have no mothers. Many are living with a relative. They are people with no hope and that makes them dangerouse as hell.

Go to Washington D.C., an area with a very high black population. Yeah, the bad parts are full of blacks but the rich suberbs are too. What's the difference between the two groups? Education and work ethic. Now, how in the hell do you educate kids with no parents or parents who don't care. It's impossible unless you want to throw them into a military type camp. That situation will never replace good parents.

As long as the country runs huge divorce rates and is full of deadbeats parents, we will have poverty gallore. The arguments we've been hearing have been arguments for decades. The govt. has spent record amounts of money on welfare and hasn't gotten a thing from it. Do you really think spending more money is going to change things?

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
You don't get the people out of the slums, you get the slums out of the people. If the family unit is in jeapardy, the govt. can do very little. Why blacks have a higher degree of poverty is because their family situation is caotic. Whites with caotic families fare just as bad. Asians tend to do better because their family units are strong and a work ethic is taught.

Putting people in workcamps is a short-term solution. No, we need to go back to family values because most the kids in those gangs have no fathers and some have no mothers. Many are living with a relative. They are people with no hope and that makes them dangerouse as hell.

Go to Washington D.C., an area with a very high black population. Yeah, the bad parts are full of blacks but the rich suberbs are too. What's the difference between the two groups? Education and work ethic. Now, how in the hell do you educate kids with no parents or parents who don't care. It's impossible unless you want to throw them into a military type camp. That situation will never replace good parents.

As long as the country runs huge divorce rates and is full of deadbeats parents, we will have poverty gallore. The arguments we've been hearing have been arguments for decades. The govt. has spent record amounts of money on welfare and hasn't gotten a thing from it. Do you really think spending more money is going to change things?

Very Well said.

[ELVIS]

I thought it was a bit naive...