Huckabee

Unfreakingbelievable.

Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate. It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .

I used to like Huckabee.......I think he has been playing for the stupid vote.....he loses my support early on.....

knothead wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate.  It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .

That's right, Progressives do not believe women or other "minorities" know their behind from their elbow and without government advice and help would be stumbling around in the dark.

2seaoat wrote:I used to like Huckabee.......I think he has been playing for the stupid vote.....he loses my support early on.....

Pray tell...what exactly did you like about him? He reminds me of this:

2seaoat wrote:I used to like Huckabee.......I think he has been playing for the stupid vote.....he loses my support early on.....

As you well know that is the Progressive and Democrat voting base.

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate.  It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .

That's right, Progressives do not believe women or other "minorities" know their behind from their elbow and without government advice and help would be stumbling around in the dark.

I suppose it's completely escaped you that many progressives are women. Maybe more than half. You really should practice thinking about what you say before you say it...like Huckabee should...but won't, because he's not capable of it.

by knothead Today at 8:01 pm
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
“
Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.
”
I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate. It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .--------
Hardly, all you liberals do is create dependence.

Floridatexan wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate.  It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .

That's right, Progressives do not believe women or other "minorities" know their behind from their elbow and without government advice and help would be stumbling around in the dark.

I suppose it's completely escaped you that many progressives are women.  Maybe more than half.  You really should practice thinking about what you say before you say it...like Huckabee should...but won't, because he's not capable of it.

Yes, most Progressives are women because so many have been led to believe they are better off being single and having children than being married. As you recall, this started with President Lyndon Baines Johnson's failed "War on Poverty" and "Great Society." This destroyed the low income family unit and is a certain recipe for children without guidance and living in poverty.

Of this, Progressives are SO PROUD!

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate.  It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .

That's right, Progressives do not believe women or other "minorities" know their behind from their elbow and without government advice and help would be stumbling around in the dark.

I suppose it's completely escaped you that many progressives are women.  Maybe more than half.  You really should practice thinking about what you say before you say it...like Huckabee should...but won't, because he's not capable of it.

Yes, most Progressives are women because so many have been led to believe they are better off being single and having children than being married.  As you recall, this started with President Lyndon Baines Johnson's failed "War on Poverty" and "Great Society."  This destroyed the low income family unit and is a certain recipe for children without guidance and living in poverty.

Of this, Progressives are SO PROUD!

Bull. Ive been married for 34 years. I would never advise a woman to have a child out of wedlock. There wouldn't be so many single mothers with children if MEN would step up and accept responsibility for their actions. Sorry, but your typical right-wing meme doesn't cut it.

Floridatexan wrote:

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.

I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate.  It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .

That's right, Progressives do not believe women or other "minorities" know their behind from their elbow and without government advice and help would be stumbling around in the dark.

I suppose it's completely escaped you that many progressives are women.  Maybe more than half.  You really should practice thinking about what you say before you say it...like Huckabee should...but won't, because he's not capable of it.

Yes, most Progressives are women because so many have been led to believe they are better off being single and having children than being married.  As you recall, this started with President Lyndon Baines Johnson's failed "War on Poverty" and "Great Society."  This destroyed the low income family unit and is a certain recipe for children without guidance and living in poverty.

Of this, Progressives are SO PROUD!

Bull.  Ive been married for 34 years.  I would never advise a woman to have a child out of wedlock.  There wouldn't be so many single mothers with children if MEN would step up and accept responsibility for their actions.  Sorry, but your typical right-wing meme doesn't cut it.

Never said YOU would advise a woman to have a child out of wedlock but you support policies and a doctrine which does.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

Walter Williams? You mean Rush Limbaugh't guest host? Yeah...great source.

Markle wrote:
“
Floridatexan wrote:
“
Markle wrote:
“
knothead wrote:
“
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
“
Yep, he's right. You liberals have told women and minorities in general that government is their solution and will make all decisions for you.
”
I think the inverse of your statement is more accurate. It is the Dems. who stand up for both women and minorities . . .
”
That's right, Progressives do not believe women or other "minorities" know their behind from their elbow and without government advice and help would be stumbling around in the dark.
”
I suppose it's completely escaped you that many progressives are women. Maybe more than half. You really should practice thinking about what you say before you say it...like Huckabee should...but won't, because he's not capable of it.
”
Yes, most Progressives are women because so many have been led to believe they are better off being single and having children than being married. As you recall, this started with President Lyndon Baines Johnson's failed "War on Poverty" and "Great Society." This destroyed the low income family unit and is a certain recipe for children without guidance and living in poverty.

Of this, Progressives are SO PROUD!
”
Bull. Ive been married for 34 years. I would never advise a woman to have a child out of wedlock. There wouldn't be so many single mothers with children if MEN would step up and accept responsibility for their actions. Sorry, but your typical right-wing meme doesn't cut it.
--------
If the government didnt give out do much free stuff people wouldn't keep having kids out of wedlock.

Floridatexan wrote:
Walter Williams?  You mean Rush Limbaugh't guest host?  Yeah...great source.

Which of the facts he posts are false. Don't rush now, take your time and go run hide!

And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/marco-rubio-is-wrong-the-war-on-poverty-worked.html

The truth is that the middle class began to disappear as funding on the war on poverty all but dried up under President Reagan in the early 80s......it then was transformed into the war on the middle class under the guise of trickle down economics and subsidy for the wealthy.

2seaoat wrote:And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/marco-rubio-is-wrong-the-war-on-poverty-worked.html

The truth is that the middle class began to disappear as funding on the war on poverty all but dried up under President Reagan in the early 80s......it then was transformed into the war on the middle class under the guise of trickle down economics and subsidy for the wealthy.

As you know, that is not true.  The poverty rate had begun to drop BEFORE the failed Johnson War on Poverty Began.  As you know too, the War on Poverty was signed into law in August 1964 which means it could not have any effect until at least 1965.



http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/figure4.pdf

IF you'll notice, the Poverty Rate in 1965 was FIFTEEN PERCENT. What is it today 2seaoat?

Keep up the...good...work!

   

the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.


Thank you......your charts confirm the same.

2seaoat wrote:the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.


Thank you......your charts confirm the same.

Social Security Act 1965 (Created Medicare and Medicaid) – July 19, 1965
Food Stamp Act of 1964- August 31, 1964[3]
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created the Community Action Program, Job Corps and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), centerpiece of the "war on poverty" – August 20, 1964
Elementary and Secondary Education Act - April 11, 1965

Pretty tricky. The law wasn't even passed, the poverty rate was already plunging and today it is no different. You are a terrific foil. Keep it up!

Obviously reading is not one of your strong points!

Mr. Markle.....please look at your charts and follow them from 1965 to 1982 where clearly poverty was down......significantly and then Mr. Reagan began the process of destroying our middle class and transferring wealth to the 1%. I went door to door for Goldwater, hoping to beat Johnson, and I still am a avid Reagan fan, but no longer on his domestic policy because the facts are just too overwhelming.....he began the process of destroying our middle class by cutting the top tax rates and gutting programs to help people out of poverty.......so again....thank you for the truthful charts.....they confirm what I have been saying for 6 years and why I think the Republican Party has been hijacked. The Republican Party used to be the party for the middle class...your chart clearly shows it is not.

2seaoat wrote:Mr. Markle.....please look at your charts and follow them from 1965 to 1982 where clearly poverty was down......significantly and then Mr. Reagan began the process of destroying our middle class and transferring wealth to the 1%.  I went door to door for Goldwater, hoping to beat Johnson, and I still am a avid Reagan fan, but no longer on his domestic policy because the facts are just too overwhelming.....he began the process of destroying our middle class by cutting the top tax rates and gutting programs to help people out of poverty.......so again....thank you for the truthful charts.....they confirm what I have been saying for 6 years and why I think the Republican Party has been hijacked.   The Republican Party used to be the party for the middle class...your chart clearly shows it is not.

Perhaps you didn't notice, this is 2014. Where is that poverty rate?

As you know, there is no transfer of wealth from the low and middle income workers to the very wealthy. That would only be true if the pie stayed the same size. In case you hadn't noticed, the distance between the median income and very top income has INCREASED drastically during the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama. His, and your policies are working exactly the opposite of what you both expected and exactly what Conservatives SAID would happen.

Has median income NOT dropped since President Barack Hussein Obama took office?

Has the top 1% NOT had their income increase since President Obama took office.