By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
updated 3:12 PM EST, Wed September 21, 2011
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No I didn't lie.
What part of "right to life" don't you understand?
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?
The numbers are acceptable for those who don't give a damn, except for things that which they do give a damn.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
And conservatives and the right-wing, cannot ever see beyond themselves, much less to the future. Go figure?
You know, I do use small words to convey a simple message. Sorry, if you're baffled in some manner.
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?
It was a smokescreen, like the War on Drugs.
So, what's your point?
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?
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.
I understand the +1, however going off on a rant about something that I'm not talking about earns a -10.
Actually, you get a -10, considering I answered your question and you've managed to say twice now, that no one has answered it.
Good show on you.
You may in your own way think you answered my question, I just don't care to see what you said.
So, let me repeat it for you- it was a smokescreen(war on poverty), like the war on drugs was too.
Deep? If you're referring to the BS sold the public, sure it was. Just like the War on Drugs is another BS sold to the public.
Any moron can tell that if politicians actually wanted to win a war on poverty, then the U.S. wouldn't be spending 16% of it's budget on education and 50%+ on military.
It would be 50% of it's budget on education and 16% of it's spending on military. But, since war is good for business and educated people are bad for politicians' control and manipulation...it is where it is.
Apparently you're out of your depth with regards to this topic.
Do you really take yourself so seriously? You know what, don't even bother to answer. I think I already know.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, Cagsil, but there was no substance to begin with.
This is actually a technique they teach on FOX. Use nonsense to talk in circles. It helps to avoid finding real solutions to very important issues and, more importantly, it masks the fact that these people don't have the foggiest clue as to what you're talking about.
I know. The +1 for the remark about Republicans. That's all. I did enjoy what Jean said, which was also a reason for it.
And, yes I realize it wasn't on topic, but enjoyed the dig at the conservatives and right-wingers.
Yes, Jean stated it quite well! It's unbelievable to me that there's so many people out there talking such nonsense while so many American people are really hurting.
I live in the SF Bay area and it literally takes more than $60k a year, after taxes, to flush the toilet:
$1k a month for family medical
$2.5k a month for housing
$1.5k a month for utilities, food, clothing, etc.
Money for retirement?
Money for girls' potential college funds?
You get the point. The American people simply can't afford these costs and, not that we needed them (as it's quite clear if you simply peak outside of the box), the poverty numbers put emphasis behind how tough it is for countless numbers of American people.
I understand the problem all too well.
My aunt lived in California for a good number of years until she was laid off by Boeing(she was an independent accountant for them). Shortly afterward, she was going through her life savings and having issues with finding a job that would meet the requirements to live there.
Shortly later she committed suicide? The actual reasons are unknown but the dilemma she was having probably had something to do with it, but wasn't the only factor in her decision to do what she did.
On a different note- I wrote a hub on how to solve poverty, but on a simple basis. There's more to it than just educating people, but it's the starting point.
First off, I'm extremely sorry to hear about your Aunt. As you noted, no matter how good we know someone, we don't always know exactly what's going on in their mind and can't always personally relate to the stresses they're experiencing.
However, we do know that financial issues put a huge strain on most people and it shouldn't at all be surprising that people will take whatever measures necessary to end the despair.
What bothers me is the utter lack of compassion that so many people appear to have. As Jean noted, when people are cheering about how many individuals have been put to death and shouting "let him die" when it comes to someone who can't afford such expensive medical insurance, we've got a problem.
Yet, many of these same people worried about their neighbor taking advantage of the system for thousands of dollars have no issues with Corporations taking advantage and gaming the system for Billions of dollars.
The discourse in this country has dwindled to horrendous levels. As you noted, we've got to start with education, but it's going to take much more!
Until then, the controlling crowd loves these arguments. As long as we're busy hating each other, we don't have time nor take the time to address the real problems at hand.
And you still haven't answered the question. The technique thing was a nice touch though. Its pretty convenient since you use the bring up FOX news technique so often, do you have an answer? Never mind, I'm sure its way too complicated for us mere mortals.
I don't need to point out that I never said Republicans are paragons of virtue. I will point out that no one will answer my question, as for death row and death sentences, just stay on topic please.
When you can't answer a question sensibly Repairguy 47, you actually sound even more ridiculous, which previously I hadn't thought possible, by suggesting others stay on topic when the topic is being discussed. Just saying.
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!
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.
Tax rates for the wealthy have been decreasing.
And wealth concentration has been increasing
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.
It never fails to surprise me how lacking in knowlege you are. Clearly under Obama poverty has accelerated to highs not seen since 1959.
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.
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.
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.
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?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Here we go again. It's "I'm uber patriotic and he's not!" time in campaign land again.In 2008 the accusation was that Obama failed to wear the "de rigeur" flag lapel pin, thus proving he is less...
by silverstararrow20 months ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
by Peg Cole12 months ago
You've probably seen the reports stating that the "Director of Education has ordered a suburban Chicago school to allow a boy who claims to be a girl into the girls’ locker room, whether or not the girls or...
by TMMason4 years ago
But hey there is no agenda in the Schools to normalize this behaviour and force it into society. No... none at all.---That’s right. Books on gay orgies and lesbian sex as required reading for students. Fox Nation...
by TMMason5 years ago
How could something that includes the words ‘pledge of allegiance to the flag of the UNITED States’ be considered divisive? Believe it or not, the mayor and city council of Eugene, Oregon just voted on this...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Free speech is alive and well in America. The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 (dissenter was Samuel Alito) that Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to picket military funerals. The church contends military...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.