Reply With Quote
DOH!
http://3trillion.org/
And I didn't even get to 3 trillion... Guess I should have bought the Yankees 350 more times.
Some highlights- I bought 16 NBA franchises, universal healthcare, repaired katrina damage, ended world hunger and our dependence on foreign oil. I also bought a six pack of hanes socks.
this war. If you support it, you.
New York Yankees
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $1,027,000,000.00
Make a Hollywood Movie
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $106,600,000.00
Treat Heart Disease and Diabetes
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $50,000,000,000.00
'An Inconvenient Truth' for every american
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $30,000,000,000.00
Medical Marijuana For All Cancer, HIV, HCV, and MS Patients
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $128,845,000,000.00
Universal Health Care for Every American (300 million of us)
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $920,100,000,000.00
A Year’s Worth of Pancreatic Cancer Research
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $66,700,000.00
Control Malaria
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $2,000,000,000.00
Luxury Ocean Liner
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $750,000,000.00
NBA Franchise
QUAN Y: 16
PRICE: $300,000,000.00
Plant 1,000,000 trees
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $10,000,000.00
Free College for 20 Million Students for 1 year
QUAN Y: 2
PRICE: $400,000,000,000.00
Hanes Classics Men's 6 pack cushion low cut, white, 6-12
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $10.00
Achieve Universal Literacy
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $5,000,000,000.00
finish repairing the damage done by Katrina
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $200,000,000,000.00
Rice for All
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $60,000,000,000.00
Switch to Solar
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $420,000,000,000.00
No Kill Animal Shelters World Wide
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $7,000,000,000.00
End our Dependence on Foreign Oil
QUAN Y: 1
PRICE: $500,000,000.00
TOTAL: $2,629,178,303,077.00
DOH!
The present massive level of spending on welfare for the poor started with the President Johnson in 1964 when he declared his "War on Poverty". Since that time there has been an estimated $7 trillion spent on this "war" with no noticeable impact on the poverty rate, as reported by the Census Bureau.
Democrats would do the same with every other "war" they'd be willing to declare.
Making poverty a national concern set in motion a series of bills and acts, creating programs such as Head Start, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, which still exist today. The programs initiated under Johnson brought about real results, reducing rates of poverty and improved living standards for America's poor.
Care should be exercized when quoting "poverty rates", as the way poverty is measured is far different today than in 1967
Quite frankly out of the last 38 years, Republicans have had the presidency for 26 of those years.
I have simply not seen any real leadership from Republicans on this issue with a paucity of realistic solutions.
How poverty measurement methods affect interpretation of the data
(for more technical explanations see the Census Bureau's Poverty Measurement site)
- Not everybody stays in poverty for the same amount of time. If you look at who is in poverty in a given year, you get a different picture than if you look at those temporarily in poverty or the long-term poverty population.
See these groups compared in the latest report on Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:Poverty
highlights of the report
The report above used data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)—unlike the official poverty data, SIPP data can show for how long, on average, individuals remain in poverty.- How you define income matters.
Not counting government cash assistance as income raises the poverty rate.
Counting noncash benefits (such as Medicaid, Medicare, and subsidized school lunches) as income lowers the poverty rate.
See the effects of noncash benefits and taxes on income and poverty
Table showing U.S. poverty rate under alternative income definitions.
Detailed Reports about alternative income definitions.
Not counting certain types of expenses as income changes who is considered to be in poverty.
Not counting work-related expenses raises poverty rates for married-couple families.
Not counting out-of-pocket medical expenses as income raises the poverty rate for older Americans.
For further details, see the research conducted by the Census Bureau based on National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) recommendations.
Tables about NAS-based alternative poverty measures
Report [PDF]- How you define need (in the thresholds) changes who is considered to be in poverty.
For further details, see the research conducted by the Census Bureau based on National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations.
Tables about NAS-based alternative poverty measures
Report [PDF]
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-15-2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason: formatting, hyperlinks
if only there was money in killing the poor.
Ebenezer Scrooge: ...Where are we now?
Ghost of Christmas Present: The name would mean nothing to you. It's a place, like too many in this world.
Meg: ...Mary, Peter, they're cooked.
[to Ben]
Meg: Do we have enough wood for the night?
Peter (their son): They're too hot to eat yet, mother.
Meg: They'll be cooler soon enough.
Mary (their daughter): How did you get these, father?
Ben: [defensive] I didn't steal them, if that's what you're saying!
Meg: She never SAID you stole them, Ben! Don't berate the girl.
Ben: She should have some respect!
Meg: They fell from a cart into the road, Mary.
Ben: Your father's not a thief, Mary... Not yet.
Meg: ...Ben, come back and eat with us, won't you?
Ben: Look at these hands, Meg. They're hard hands; they've done hard work. I want to work, to have bread for my children... It's not right that there's no work.
Meg: We four still have each other, Ben. That's the most important thing.
Ben: I love you, Meg, all of you. Tomorrow, I want you to take the children and go to the Parish Poorhouse.
Meg: No! Better we all drown in the river, than go to one of THOSE places and be separated forever!
Ben: Only until I can find work.
Meg: We wouldn't LAST that long...! Come on, Ben, let's have some dinner.
Ebenezer Scrooge: Why are these people out here? Wearing rags, eating scraps! Why aren't they in poorhouses, or...?
Ghost of Christmas Present: Have you VISITED any of these poorhouses you speak of?
Ebenezer Scrooge: No, but I'm taxed for them; isn't that enough?
Ghost of Christmas Present: YOU tell ME.
Link? I would like to see the source data, to verify if this claim, if possible.
Wouldn't know THAT if you listen to the rhetoric from the left, would you?
How are we doing by '67 standards? Can we stop playing the class warfare card?
That is a very good question, and one I am attempting to get to the bottom of.
There is a LOT to read on the subject, as any brief tour through the Census website shows.
You DO NOT get moral high ground simply because you've become a flaming liberal over the past 24 months! Voting left is EASY; giving you OWN time, money and effort to ACTUALLY help people is putting action to those sanctimonious words you are spewing.
Conservatives, again, give MORE in charity than liberals.
YOU KNOW WHY? Because TAXES ARE NOT ENOUGH!!!! Scrooge must have been a liberal, he assumed taxes could fix a problem, when, obviously, it didn't.
Thanks for pointing that quote out; I'll use it.
I have always been a centrist. I only became a "liberal" after GW was elected and I was redefined that way by conservatives such as yourself.
Since then I have fully embraced the term, and turned my back on a party that has betrayed me.
Revolutions tend to eat their children and the Republican revolution has been no different. The extremists get control and moderates are thrown under the bus for not being revolutionary enough.
That's ok, we have long memories.
Ah yes, sanctimonious words...
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Mark 12
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."
...and yet the Republicans have nominated one of the most moderate among themselves.
Go Figure.
Bush is not governing conservatively; the Medicaire drug act certainly doesn't fall into any "Far Right" agenda I've read. Amnesty for illegal aliens? As much as you may talk about "studying"..."Buying into hype" <> "Study".
Iraq is what it is, but trying to make Bush out to be some ideological right wing devotee is intellectually weak.
And, honestly, I wish I had the faith to do that.
FWIW, I give at church weekly; and have become a firm devotee that the Lord returns ten times what is given; the more I give, the more I seem to prosper; seriously. Taken that to the ultimate extreme, and following the desciples' lead, however, takes a faith I don't have.
Astonishingly enough, I do all three, thank you very much.
I give what I can to a local children's shelter in San Marcos, do some mentoring, and volunteer tax preparation once per year.
But hey, thanks for showing everyone your own prejudices when it comes to people who disagree with you. It shows rather clearly how you make decisions with little or no data.
Not sure what you are getting at here. You are not suggesting that voting left some how equates to "loving thy neighbor"...are you?
Please verify if that is the case.
Something we can both fully agree on. (picks self off floor)
Writing too quickly; didn't mean to suggest that you DON'T; just that I DO. Was offended you suggested "paying taxes" = "unScroogelike"
McCain is indeed somewhat moderate. He is also a Republican, and that party has lost my vote long ago.
Personally, his flip-flop on torture finally removed any lingering desire to vote for him. I cannot forgive that.
Fair enough, I take it back and apologize for the last bit.
Shall we bring up Obama's quotes during the '04 convention on the Iraq war?
That is a more obvious flip that McCain's NOT voting for the current bill. He DID sponsor a bill that banned much torture, that is in effect, and has explained WHY he didn't support this one. The fact that Huffington doesn't like his decision doesn't surprise me.
If the Dems were smart, however, they would bring up bill after bill that a moderate would support, but will make the right wing cringe; It's tough in a two party system to build a coalition when on EVERY bill you have to vote "Yes" or "No" for the entire thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
