jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (64 posts)

Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race

  1. Stacie L profile image86
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
    updated 3:12 PM EST, Wed September 21, 2011

    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    Roland Martin says new poverty numbers an expression of a recession that started in 2007
    He says of 10 poorest states, most have voted Republican in presidential elections
    Martin says poverty issue should have come up in GOP presidential debates but hasn't
    Martin: GOP agenda fails to face complex issue of poverty; voters in poor states should take heed

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/opinion/m … ?hpt=po_t2

    1. iQwest profile image71
      iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No surprise.  They have much more important things to worry about like protecting tax cuts for billionaires, making sure nobody gets affordable and quality healthcare (except for the socialized healthcare program they have and love) , praying for people to change sexual preferences, you get the point.

      When would they have time to address the poverty numbers?  After all those in poverty are all losers who don't pull themselves up from their bootstraps.  Right?

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Martin has a chip on his shoulder almost the size of Obama's chip.  I used to watch him on CNN before I got sick of hearing his biased views.
      All he's doing with that article is trying to distract (typically) from the moral issues;  reckon he's teed because so many poor people think opposing baby-killing and other immoral agendas should be top-of-the-list issues and they aren't swayed to the Left.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would think that the rising numbers of poverty stricken family would be more important than the right's agenda to take away women's rights.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I mentioned the baby-killing issue.  I said nothing about taking away women's rights.  You must've failed to see that.
          But while I'm at it, I'll point out to you that abortion takes away the rights of the child and usually the rights of the child's father.  So I'm pretty sick of hearing about women's "rights" to kill their own children.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why don't people STAY OUT of other people's life. How is that? Is it better for you?
            I didn't fail to see anything.
            That's a lie. But, thank you for showing of how blind you are.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No I didn't lie.
              What part of "right to life" don't you understand?

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Apparently, I understand it fine. You're the one with the distorted view, solely based on religious beliefs, which have NO grounds in other people's life. Duh!

      2. iQwest profile image71
        iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        With poverty numbers such as those just released, we should all have a big chip on our shoulder shouldn't we?  Are numbers like this acceptable anywhere, let alone the United States?

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The numbers are acceptable for those who don't give a damn, except for things that which they do give a damn.

          1. iQwest profile image71
            iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, always mired in social issues when it lends to discriminating against someone who doesn't live as they do.

            Yes, they hate socialism when it comes to helping people, but love it when it comes to enforcing their morality.

            Yes, always worried about illegal immigration, but don't seem to care that GE didn't pay taxes and the American people subsidized their tax credit.

            Always protecting the child until the child becomes old enough to put their lives in harms way to fight their wars of choice.

            A great agenda!

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I know, ALL politicians are useless.

          2. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What?

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol

        2. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Apparently they're acceptable to the Democrats.  If they were so worried about poverty, they wouldn't push for benefits for illegals, nor would they push America into giving special status to homosexuals who want to claim "partnership" or "marriage" and "child" benefits.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            More BS, from a person with an religious agenda. Good show. It's not just Democrats, it's ALL politicians that don't give a damn about them
            ALL politicians put America in the position it's in with regards to this topic.
            If you're not for equality, then do away will ALL benefits gained for those. Either it works both ways or it doesn't work. Got it? That's called equality.

          2. Jean Bakula profile image93
            Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If two men or two women buy a home together because they are consulting adults and this is what they want, why shouldn't they have the right to leave the home to one in the event the other dies? Without laws to protect their rights, their families who may  not agree with their views can contest the wishes of the person.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Because they're not natural spouses. 

              If you want to follow that tangent you described, we might as well not have ANY laws, period, about home ownership.  Or about anything.

              Lawlessness seems to be the goal of liberals.  But they'll have a rude awakening if/when lawlessness does finally abound.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Your logic is screwed up Brenda. roll

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, you're awesome.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    roll

              2. livelonger profile image87
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A complete police state without freedoms is social conservatives' goal, with laws dictated by the Bible. Yes, the Christian version of shariah.

                Well, um, except that one about divorce and remarriage, which would have landed you in jail if it were the law. lol

              3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am sooooooo glad someone finally injected some good Christian horse sense into this outhouse of liberal hogwash.  If you're gonna let a pair of sodomites own a home and have the same benefits as normal people, where does it end?  You might as well let 2 possums or a couple of illegal aliens have rights.  While we're at it, why not let 27 people marry each other and buy a house.  They could get a polygamortgage and engage in their perverted acts right on main street.

                Amen Sister Brenda.  Keep preachin' the word.  We'll have the last laugh when these heathens are drowning in lakes of fire for all eternity.  I could piss on them from Heaven to alleviate their suffering, but I won't.  I will laugh the laughter of the righteous while Obama and the other liberal perverts reap the rewards of their blasphemy.

                BTW, the Christmas season is nearly upon us.  I'm getting ready to spit on anyone who wishes me "Happy Holidays".

                1. Jean Bakula profile image93
                  Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Anyone who thinks their religion is better than anyone else's is not a spiritual person. You need the Devil and the damned, or you wouldn't need salvation from anything. Have you ever even read anything or discussed any other religions with people who do not share your beliefs? Repairguy47 and Brenda, you both sound like undereducated people who don't get out much. Your logic is very flawed.

        3. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How's that war on poverty going that the left started? Democrats and liberals never seem to see that they are the ones at fault.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And conservatives and the right-wing, cannot ever see beyond themselves, much less to the future. Go figure? hmm

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Another baffling bit of word smithery.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You know, I do use small words to convey a simple message. Sorry, if you're baffled in some manner. hmm

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You do use small words but you aren't really saying anything, no matter how profound you think it is. I'll give you another chance. How is the war on poverty going that the left started so many years ago?

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It was a smokescreen, like the War on Drugs.

                    So, what's your point?

                  2. iQwest profile image71
                    iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Seriously, what are you talking about Repairguy47?  Are you really taking the position that the GOP is the party that takes care of the least fortunate among us?

                  3. Jean Bakula profile image93
                    Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Repairguy47,
                    Since Republicans are such paragons of virtue, why can't the billlionaires cough up more money in taxes to feed people who are starving, homeless or jobless. You all think they bring these problems on themselves, but many do not. I was stunned watching Rick Perry the other night. Wolf Blitzer asked him why Texas killed over 200 people for death penalty offenses. Now, Perry's answer was good. He said if anybody thought they could go to TX, murder a child, cop, or anyone, they would pay the price. But before he gave this acceptable and good answer, the crowd was cheering about 200 dead people. And right to lifers never want to have programs to help women raise those babies they may want to abort for reasons that are nobody's business. If R's are so pro-life, why do they always support war? If our troops came home from Afganistan and Iraq, we would have trillions to spend. And as far as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, it's way overdue. The military should be happy with whomever they get willing to fight for their country, although I am against war, especially one about oil.

    3. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lol! Obama is the food stamp president! More people are in poverty because of Obama and his policies than ever before, 15% of the population! Unemployment among minorities are almost 2x the national average and among the youth it's also above average. I think if poverty is brought up in the republican debate it won't be good for Obama as each candidate points to his record of failure on this issue!

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ladylove, your distortion is unbelievable.

        Poverty has been increasing by a great deal, long before Obama ever became President. Blaming him for the increase in poverty levels is absolutely absurd.

        I will agree that he hasn't help diminish the numbers, but then again politicians are not interested in diminishing the numbers. So get real.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Tax rates for the wealthy have been decreasing.


          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5544377_f248.jpg

          And wealth concentration has been increasing

          http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5544382_f248.jpg

          In case you can't read the chart it shows that the top 1% of Americans owned 34% of the wealth and the bottom 40% owned .2% of the wealth in 2004. The percentage owned by the top 1% has increased since 2004.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting wealth is a finite number that never changes and that wealth can only be moved around, that it can't grow?

        2. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.africancrisis.co.za/images/Graph_US_Stock_market_431.6_Million_Americans_Living_In_Poverty_Is_The_Highest_Number_Ever_Recorded_poverty-chart1.jpg

          It never fails to surprise me how lacking in knowlege you are. Clearly under Obama poverty has accelerated to highs not seen since 1959.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Ladylove, do try to READ words written. Nothing you can say is going to dispute what I actually said. Obama hasn't helped the situation, but he also isn't the only problem causing it.

            Many past Presidents did nothing to lower the poverty level. The fact that you want to claim he has increased it? Of course, but so has every other President.

            So your pathetic point is MOOT.

    4. Abundant old soul profile image83
      Abundant old soulposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      People are essentially stupid. How many t party people are zillionaires? They look like dumb hillbillies to me. Oops, I did not mean to slam hillbillies, they are smarter.

  2. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    It will remain an invisible issue until their advisors tell them to start using the word poor and poverty at their campaign stops and debates. But they will be empty words. They do not want to help those living in poverty.

    It's very sad that issues can't be discussed without repudiating the source in these political forums.

  3. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    If it is brought up, people are looking for solutions, not another blame game.

    At least now the GOP are showing their true colors in regard to how they feel about those living in poverty. They simply don't care so they don't talk about it.
    They no longer can call themselves 'compassionate conservatives' (cough), and pretend they care. Now it's out in the open. Anything they say is nothing more than campaign speak. The American public are smart enough to see through it, at least those who don't wear blinders.


    Don't you think Americans can see a fig leaf for what it is?

 
working