Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.” Yes, yes we do.

posted at 8:01 pm on June 10, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

While nominating Jason Furman to replace Alan Krueger as the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers at the White House on Monday afternoon, President Obama made what Politico called a “rare mention” of child poverty in the United States:

“Even though the economy is growing, too many middle class families still feel like they’re working harder and harder and can’t get ahead,” Obama said. “Inequality is still growing in our society. Too many young people aren’t sure whether they’ll be able to match the living standards of their parents. We have too many kids in poverty in this country, still.”

Furman, should he be confirmed by the Senate, would replace Alan Krueger, who is leaving the White House for a post at Princeton University. Along with “political will,” Obama said it will take the work Furman and the work his staff to push his economic agenda.

And there it is — that ever-present liberal specter of “inequality,” the phantom of progressive imaginations in which one tiny group of Americans is essentially pillaging their ill-begotten wealth from an increasingly large swath of hardworking but somehow poorer and poorer Americans, speaks for much of the basis of President Obama’s economic agenda. It is the convenient and noble-sounding excuse he provides for needing to step in and forcibly redistribute the wealth — instead of endorsing the much more prosperous reality of a freer and more open economy in which people are constantly creating wealth and enriching the basic standard of living in the process.

Decades of liberal policies directly meant to combat poverty have spectacularly failed to eliminate the problem, but somehow, here we are with another Democratic administration — and yet poverty rates ticking upward to their highest levels in decades — with child poverty sitting at around 20 percent. A newly released NBC/WSJ poll suggests that at least a plurality of Americans are unconvinced that many of the federal government’s perhaps well-meaning but ultimately ill-conceived schemes for combating poverty are really all that effective:

Two decades after President Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it,” Americans blame government handouts for persistent poverty in the United States more than any other single factor, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.

Given a list of eight factors and asked to choose the one most responsible for the continuing problem of poverty, 24 percent of respondents in the poll chose “too much government welfare that prevents initiative.” …

“Lack of job opportunities” was the second most popular answer, at 18 percent, followed by “lack of good educational opportunities” and “breakdown of families,” with 13 percent apiece.

A robust economy with many and diverse opportunities for private-sector jobs, rather than the practically stagnant “recovery” mess through which we’ve been traipsing for the past few years, is much more effective at lifting people out of poverty than any poverty programs can ever hope to be — and a robust economy is a goal to which too many of President Obama’s policies are directly counterproductive.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just give them free phones and computers so the NSA can spy on them more easily. Problem solved.

Armin Tamzarian on June 10, 2013 at 8:08 PM

What?

Poverty is a relative term. They recently changed the definition. Thus, more people are in “poverty.”

Why not attack the idiotic assumption that anyone in America actually live in poverty instead of using the Left’s standards to attack them?

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 10, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.”

*whew*

He didn’t blame Bush!

itsnotaboutme on June 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Police state Obama

Schadenfreude on June 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Obama’s America. Congratulations, fools.

Schadenfreude on June 10, 2013 at 8:13 PM

No vacations for you and your family and no more golf! Put your money where your mouth is, Barry!

Blake on June 10, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Poverty.

Such as it was, such as it is, such as it shall be under Democrat rule, I mean administrations.

banzaibob on June 10, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Hey, dummies, you voted for the fool.

He’s sure inspiring you, the 1%r of the world.

Schadenfreude on June 10, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Why not attack the idiotic assumption that anyone in America actually live in poverty

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 10, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Most of the world lives on $5 a day or less.

Our “poverty-stricken” families have huge flat TVs, two cars, three bedrooms, Obama-phones, & all the food they can eat.

itsnotaboutme on June 10, 2013 at 8:15 PM

We’ve been fighting a War on Poverty since the 1960s, i.e. My whole life. Let’s declare an end to it.

rbj on June 10, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Want to stay out of poverty?

1. Don’t have kids until you’re married.

2. Don’t get married until you finish high school.

3. Finish high school.

Wethal on June 10, 2013 at 8:17 PM

So why does Obama keep them in poverty with his destruction of morality and the family?????

In February The Marriage and Religion Research Institute released statistics on the benefits of an intact married family in which children grow up with both birth parents.

From Influence on Public Policy Metrics:

Benefits of family intactness compared with benefits of education

Public policy assumes, and needs no persuasion, that education attainment is a good to be promoted. The same assumption does not hold for family intactness. However:

-Family intactness always has a beneficial influence on the outcomes measured.

-Family intactness is roughly as important as high school education and more important than college education in influencing outcomes of public policy interest.

Influence of family intactness on need & dependency

-Family intactness is the most important factor (or shares the place of greatest importance) in determining an area’s dependence on welfare programs that target organic poverty:

—Receipt of food stamps,
—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and state welfare transfers,
—Supplemental Security Income transfers, and
—Prime-age adult public healthcare recipiency.

-Family intactness has the second-largest influence on overall diminishment of prime-age female, and child, poverty.

-Family intactness has the strongest attenuating influence on teenage out-of-wedlock birth, itself a source of economic hardship.

Given the facts, if Obama cared about children in poverty, then supporting and defending marriage and family structure should a high priority for him. Not to mention refraining from crippling regulations.

Lefties never stand in front of children to protect them—they stand behind children and use them as pawns for their policies.

INC on June 10, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Whatever.

The key to obama’s win in 2012, and the key to any future democrat win, at any level, is to make sure that as many Americans as possible live in poverty (and one the government dole). The democrat agenda is simple, and it has not changed for decades: FREELOADERS = democrat VOTERS (current, future and permanent).

Pork-Chop on June 10, 2013 at 8:18 PM

rbj on June 10, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Agreed. The longest war in American history (?) started by Democrats.

And they say Republicans are warmongers?

Pffft

VibrioCocci on June 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM

So he’s admitting that democrat policies don’t work, and haven’t worked to “end poverty”. He just won’t admit he’s admitting it.

SouthernGent on June 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM

itsnotaboutme on June 10, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Yes, indeed, but we should still have the best economy possible.

And…make a Commandment out of this to save us:

A robust economy with many and diverse opportunities for private-sector jobs, rather than the practically stagnant “recovery” mess through which we’ve been traipsing for the past few years, is much more effective at lifting people out of poverty than any poverty programs can ever hope to be — and a robust economy is a goal to which too many of President Obama’s policies are directly counterproductive.

IlikedAUH2O on June 10, 2013 at 8:20 PM

We’ve been fighting a War on Poverty since the 1960s, i.e. My whole life. Let’s declare an end to it.

rbj on June 10, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned LBJ expanding welfare would destory minority families. LBJ and his minions didn’t believe it. All you need to solve something is a big federal program (that buys votes, too). And fathers wouldn’t abandon their kids to be supported by the state.

And so LBJ raided the Social Security trust fund to pary for the War On Poverty. The IOU’s keep getting replaced iwth new ones.

Wethal on June 10, 2013 at 8:20 PM

“Even though the economy is growing, too many middle class families still feel like they’re working harder and harder and can’t get ahead,”

Hey, how about unleashing the economy? We still have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Anti-small business regulations have increased under Obama. The dark-blue state economic model (IL, CA, NY, etc.) that Obama seeks to impose on the entire country is the exact opposite of what we need to do to help lower-income families.

visions on June 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Want to stay out of poverty?

1. Don’t have kids until you’re married.

2. Don’t get married until you finish high school.

3. Finish high school.

Wethal on June 10, 2013 at 8:17 PM

It really isn’t that much more complicated than this. I might add 4. don’t spend money you don’t have but 1-3 is a good start.

hopeful on June 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM

It is the convenient and noble-sounding excuse he provides for needing to step in and forcibly redistribute the wealth — instead of endorsing the much more prosperous reality of a freer and more open economy

I don’t know if you’re suggesting that Obama has enacted policies geared toward ‘redistribution’, but there’s no question that under Obama the assets of this country have been increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, not the other way around.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1

It’s not clear that lower tax rates for the wealthy, in place since the Bush administration, ave resulted in a ‘freer’ system.

Job creation was stifled by the sequester, which Wall Street estimates culled GDP by one half to a full point. You can’t expect job growth to expand under those conditions.

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.”

Obama loves poor people, that’s why he creates so many of them.

whatcat on June 10, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Whats the differance…….you keep pluggin that money into planned parenthood you jackass…just think sparky 53 million potential taxpayers that you and your baby killing friends took care of…barry you are the problem not the solution

crosshugger on June 10, 2013 at 8:24 PM

You keep using that word, poverty. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ronnie on June 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM

After spending/wasting upward of $12 trillion in the war on poverty since 1966 and still without anything to show for it, maybe we need a new battle plan. The original Democrat one of the Great Society isn’t working.

Liam on June 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Forget sequester. Add that .5- 1% and growth still sucks, fool. It’s sucked for 5 years now.

wolly4321 on June 10, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Liam on June 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM

O/T Bluefox left these comments elsewhere. She wanted to be sure that you saw them:

A Historic Homecoming

On June 22, 2012, the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association emerged triumphant from an auction at Christie’s in New York, securing a priceless treasure: George Washington’s personal copy of the Acts of Congress. This rare volume includes Washington’s copy of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other legislation passed by the first session of Congress, complete with his personal annotations.

There is a video here too that shows the last of the bidding for this treasure.

http://www.mountvernon.org/actsofcongress/

Also a few active links showing the travels of this book.

Another great companion site on Mt. Vernon.

http://www.mountvernon.org/#fragment-4

INC on June 10, 2013 at 8:27 PM

trollcott wanted

22044 on June 10, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Poverty is a relative term. They recently changed the definition. Thus, more people are in “poverty.”

Why not attack the idiotic assumption that anyone in America actually live in poverty instead of using the Left’s standards to attack them?

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 10, 2013 at 8:11 PM

repeat this. often.

Lost in Jersey on June 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Are they counting the amount families receive in benefits in their poverty statistics? We could hand every family enough cash to bring them up to $100,000 of annual income and, if it isn’t counted in the statistics, they will still look like they’re dirt poor. And liberals will still decry the evils of our society, while pushing for even more government programs that they will never count in the statistics.

Are they counting Section 8? food stamps? free lunches? free breakfasts? medicaid? EITC? welfare payments? job training? Obamaphones?

After we’re done handing out government assistance, how many people are still poor? That isn’t a non-zero number, but it isn’t as high as the statistics when all of the government’s actions are ignored either.

HakerA on June 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM

We could get children out of poverty if their parents could get jobs at all or get full-time jobs or get jobs that would pay them a living wage if businesses weren’t subject to the shakedown imposed by the Patient Prevention and unAffordable Obamuh couldn’t Care less Act.

(Gee, I hope da’ gubmint surveillants are reading this!)

stukinIL4now on June 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned LBJ expanding welfare would destory minority families. LBJ and his minions didn’t believe it.

Wethal on June 10, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Don’t fool yourself. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. His plan was to keep them on the plantation and voting Democrat forever and it appears to be working.

Oldnuke on June 10, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Want to stay out of poverty?

1. Don’t have kids until you’re married.

2. Don’t get married until you finish high school.

3. Finish high school.

Wethal on June 10, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Real easy for you to say, Miss Richie Rich.

These poor people live in hopeless squalor with just barely enough to get them rent to own bling wheels. Then with EBT to use, one has a difficult time prioritizin how to best utilize the limited resources available to the downtrodden, the most helpless and hopeless in our society. So pay up.

arnold ziffel on June 10, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.”

You know what will fix that?

MORE FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!

/

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Gee Obama, the most intelligent narcissist in the room and champion of cradle to grave nanny-ism, how on earth would welfare leaches produce more children in poverty?
As a sleazy lawyer once said, “The rich get richer, the poor have children.”

kregg on June 10, 2013 at 8:34 PM

By Reagans 4th year we had 7.2% gdp, and they still accuse him of starving the masses.

wolly4321 on June 10, 2013 at 8:34 PM

trollcott wanted

22044 on June 10, 2013 at 8:28 PM

…starting now!…not six months before an election.

KOOLAID2 on June 10, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Given the facts, if Obama cared about children in poverty, then supporting and defending marriage and family structure should a high priority for him.

INC on June 10, 2013 at 8:18 PM

I don’t agree with Santorum on everything, but on this point he is 100% correct. Single parenthood is the greatest cause of poverty in the US today. It’sa shame Obama won’t do anything to combat it and even promotes it, a la Julia.

talkingpoints on June 10, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.”

You know what will fix that?

MORE FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!

/

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 8:31 PM

And Obamaphones, don’t forget Obamaphones!

Oldnuke on June 10, 2013 at 8:36 PM

I just thought of a great “band name” – Ignore Idiots.

VegasRick on June 10, 2013 at 8:37 PM

arnold ziffel on June 10, 2013 at 8:30 PM

No problem. IF they’re running low on money they can just do like some families I’ve worked with-have another baby. Get more in food stamps, WIC and probably a bigger apartment. Plus with subsidized day care and Head Start, they don’t even really have to spend much time with the offspring.

hopeful on June 10, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I don’t know if you’re suggesting that Obama has enacted policies geared toward ‘redistribution’, but there’s no question that under Obama the assets of this country have been increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, not the other way around.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM

That entire article you linked is based on the “Zero Sum Fallacy.” There is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a fixed sum of wealth that is divided amongst the population. When the rich get richer, that does not mean that the poor get poorer. Wealth is created.

visions on June 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I do know that there are some families out there that do use welfare as a temporary help until they get on their feet. Unfortunately, there are too many who see welfare as a way of life that their children then “aspire” to. We don’t really help people by giving them handouts.

hopeful on June 10, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Yeh food stamps, cell phones, lengthy unemployment benefits, disability claims……..

they have all gone down under Obama….

Oh wait……….

CW on June 10, 2013 at 8:45 PM

No problem. IF they’re running low on money they can just do like some families I’ve worked with-have another baby. Get more in food stamps, WIC and probably a bigger apartment. Plus with subsidized day care and Head Start, they don’t even really have to spend much time with the offspring.

hopeful on June 10, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I have noticed that “time management” ain’t on these people’s to do list. they can’t even buy the tykes books or stimulating toys.

arnold ziffel on June 10, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Mission Accomplished

/Obama’s Americorps

Jackalope on June 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM

That entire article you linked is based on the “Zero Sum Fallacy.” There is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a fixed sum of wealth that is divided amongst the population. When the rich get richer, that does not mean that the poor get poorer. Wealth is created.

visions on June 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Wealth is created but it’s also measurable across socioeconomic groups.

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Food stamps and other nutrition programs also have more than doubled in the past 10 years. Food stamp participation rates also more than doubled, growing from 19.096 million recipients in 2002 to 44.709 million by 2011.

Winning.

CW on June 10, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Obamacare will increase federal health spending by 15 percent, bringing it to 44 percent of all mandatory spending.

No redistribution there…

/

CW on June 10, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Wealth is created but it’s also measurable across socioeconomic groups.

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM

yet that still doesn’t disprove visions little small point.

CW on June 10, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Hey, Barry, don’t forget your war on women.

Community-divider-in-chief.

petefrt on June 10, 2013 at 8:50 PM

After we’re done handing out government assistance, how many people are still poor? That isn’t a non-zero number, but it isn’t as high as the statistics when all of the government’s actions are ignored either.

HakerA on June 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I believe the only truly poor people in this country are the homeless. If you’re on welfare and have a roof over your head and three meals a day, heat, clothing and often transportation you’re not exactly poor. Most of the homeless are so situated because of the mess in the mental health system and the closure of hospitals.

hopeful on June 10, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Give them a free Volt so they can get to their jobs…also don’t forget the free phones, TV, and resume writing service.

Oh, I forgot one minor thing…create jobs instead of destroying jobs.

“We don’t want to tax all companies out of business”…

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I believe the only truly poor people in this country are the homeless. If you’re on welfare and have a roof over your head and three meals a day, heat, clothing and often transportation you’re not exactly poor. Most of the homeless are so situated because of the mess in the mental health system and the closure of hospitals.

hopeful on June 10, 2013 at 8:51 PM

As someone from India once said; “I always wanted to visit American, a country where the poor people are fat”.

right2bright on June 10, 2013 at 8:53 PM

And there it is — that ever-present liberal specter of “inequality,” the phantom of progressive imaginations
========================================================

“Taxes”!!

canopfor on June 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.”

You know what will fix that?

MORE FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!

/

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 8:31 PM
And Obamaphones, don’t forget Obamaphones!

Oldnuke on June 10, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Add more unemployment and wham the economy is booming.

RickB on June 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/welfare-spending-climbs-obama/2012/10/18/id/460514#ixzz2VrgUgyHl
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Yep no redistribution under Obama. None.

CW on June 10, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Speaking of the Children:
*************************

Judge lifts morning-after pill restrictions

Feds tell judge they’ll comply with order letting girls of any age buy morning-after pill – @AP

Story metadata:
Submitted 1 hour ago from bigstory.ap.org by editor
===================================================

canopfor on June 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.” Yes, yes we do.

Funny how 18 million more people on food stamps than 4 years ago will do that…

Hog Wild on June 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM

So let’s provide a magnet for millions more poor kids via amnesty.

bw222 on June 10, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids…”

Planned Parenthood and the Butcher of Philadelphia agree.

Fallon on June 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

60% of Richmond, VA families (86% of Black Families) Single Parent:

http://wtvr.com/2013/06/10/60-percent-of-richmond-families-single-parent/

bw222 on June 10, 2013 at 9:16 PM

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

nazo311 on June 10, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Poverty in today’s America is so comfortable that a significant percentage of the populace prefer it to working. To reduce poverty Obama could make it less appealing, but he’s not going to do that. Instead he’ll do what he’s always planned to do: redistribute wealth to make poverty even more appealing. This will result in increasing the percentage that prefer poverty, and decreasing the percentage who prefer to be productive, since more of their payroll is taxed away from them, and then he can use those results to justify doing it all over again.

Socratease on June 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Job creation was stifled by the sequester, which Wall Street estimates culled GDP by one half to a full point. You can’t expect job growth to expand under those conditions.

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Sorry sport, the Fed and CBO tell us that 90% of the drag on GDP is due to higher taxes courtesy of Obama.

You can’t expect job growth under those conditions.

HumpBot Salvation on June 10, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Decades of liberal policies directly meant to combat poverty have spectacularly failed to eliminate the problem

The Dems just repeat the old communist adage “Just give us MORE time and MORE money!”

GarandFan on June 10, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Wealth is created but it’s also measurable across socioeconomic groups.

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Have you actually ever worked with low socio-economic families? I have and the problem is not how wealth is distributed. They don’t have the vaguest notion on how to create and hold wealth. For far too many if they have 5 bucks in their pockets it is gone like magic and they don’t understand where it went. So you can quote all the ivory tower academic research you like but it really isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

chemman on June 10, 2013 at 9:34 PM

I don’t know if you’re suggesting that Obama has enacted policies geared toward ‘redistribution’, but there’s no question that under Obama the assets of this country have been increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, not the other way around.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1

bayam on June 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Which country is ‘this country,’ Canuck?

Resist We Much on June 10, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned LBJ expanding welfare would destory minority families. LBJ and his minions didn’t believe it. All you need to solve something is a big federal program (that buys votes, too). And fathers wouldn’t abandon their kids to be supported by the state.

And so LBJ raided the Social Security trust fund to pary for the War On Poverty. The IOU’s keep getting replaced iwth new ones.

Wethal on June 10, 2013 at 8:20 PM

http://donny-allen.us/2012/10/23/ill-n!ggers-voting-democratic-200-years-lyndon-b-johnson/

(You will have to replace the “!” with an “i”.)

davidk on June 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Why doesn’t the GOP talk about this?

PattyJ on June 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM

nazo311 on June 10, 2013 at 9:24 PM

In the “poor” town in which I drive a school bus the (government subsidized) “projects” are very nice townhouses around which are park Lexuses, Jaguars, Acuras, and Mercedeses.

davidk on June 10, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Obama: We still have “too many kids in poverty in this country.” Yes, yes we do.

And WH-manufactured headlines such as these are great leverage for redistributing other people’s wealth right into your pockets and those of your cronies, isn’t it now?

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 10, 2013 at 11:22 PM

We’ve been fighting a War on Poverty since the 1960s, i.e. My whole life. Let’s declare an end to it.

rbj on June 10, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Pretty tough to win a “War on Poverty” when our government keeps importing millions more Third World poor here every year.

Even as we speak, the federal government is pushing a bill to legalize tens of millions of illegal aliens, the vast majority of whom are poor, and give them the legal right to chain-migrate into the U.S. unlimited millions more of their poor and elderly relatives.

AZCoyote on June 11, 2013 at 7:56 AM

I GOT DA PHOOOOOONE…

Pest on June 11, 2013 at 8:27 AM

The ‘state of poverty’ in the USA is defined as having income that is a certain percentage of the average income, therefore we will never eliminate ‘poverty’. That’s the way the system is designed, for never-ending headlines sympathetic to the income-redistributionists.

MSM Falls for “New Coke” Poverty Con

slickwillie2001 on June 11, 2013 at 9:46 AM

We have too many kids in poverty in this country, still.”

But we’ll keep promising you free stuff so don’t worry.

ghostwalker1 on June 11, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Erika, There unfortunately **IS** a small group of people who is pillaging their ill-gotten wealth from an increasingly large hardworking group of people who nonetheless are growing poorer and poorer. They are not the industrialists, however, which is what most leftists seem to think. They are the political cronies, whose corruption leads to rules that small people cannot avoid or buy their way out of. Those people and the restrictions they are putting on their smaller competitors are choking the economic life from most Americans. In the long-term, they must fail in their endeavor. The law of controlled predation means that their actions must lead to their own ruin. Unfortunately, in the meantime, a lot of little people will be unfairly ruined as well, and the economic health of the country will not improve.

DrUrchin on June 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

This was a pro-abortion speech right…?
-

RalphyBoy on June 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM

‘I don’t what my daughters punished with a baby.‘ – King Putt talking about his teenage daughters who’s names he can’t remember.

But President Downgrade will FIX all of this by allowing any daughter/teenager/etc. hell there is NO AGE LIMIT to go a buy a powerful pharmacutical* (RU54, et al) that promotes a ‘self-abortion’.
Get it? Poverty problem redefined.
Have a heart condition? Take a pill.
Have an unwanted pregnancy? Take a pill.

*Does ANYONE in a responsible scientific postion have a clue what the LONG TERM EFFECTS are of this plethra of drugs that the FDA and HHS are now allowing our young females in this country to take WITHOUT DOCTOR SUPERVISION?

WFT?

Missilengr on June 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Barry, we all know it’s Bush’s fault.

RdLake on June 11, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Too many young people aren’t sure whether they’ll be able to match the living standards of their parents. We have too many kids in poverty in this country, still.”

Because neither the young people nor their parents can find jobs. Note to Oblunder: the culprit is preening himself in the nearest mirror!

Steve Z on June 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Perhaps ITGuy or RWM can collect the pertinent data but I recall many years ago reading an article in National Review that made a expenditure analysis comparing the amount we’ve spent on ‘big ticket things’ over the decades.
The money spent on the WOP (War on Poverty) since the 60′s to 2000 exceeded ALL THE MONEY SPENT on EVERY WAR from the Revolutionary War, War with Mexico, Civil War (between the States say some), Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. All these do not equal the money we’ve spent on the so called WOP.

There was a great statement by Bill Buckley who said, ‘We should not curse the people who wait below for the money that is being thrown out of the window.’ Or words to that effect.

The free spenders are killing this country and they are doing it because we let them.

Missilengr on June 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM