HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama launches his WAR ON...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:11 PM

Obama launches his WAR ON POVERTY!!!

At this time of rampant homelessness and a failing job market for the majority of Americans, I am doubly thrilled to see Obama has taken the bull by the horns with his WAR ON POVERTY!
There is so much to be excited about - the new Office of Economic Opportunity, Vista, Job Corps, Head Start, the Community Action Program, to name a few!
Job Corps even helps disadvantaged young folks obtain their G.E.D.s and get into college!
I will watch this inauguration with tears of gratitude, knowing the man I voted for felt the pain of the middle class, and stood up to corporate greed to show them this is
"The United States of America", NOT "The Corporate States of America"!

Let me find some more info here... oh shit. That was Lyndon Johnson. Sorry, people.

64 replies, 5034 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama launches his WAR ON POVERTY!!! (Original post)
warrprayer Jan 2013 OP
slackmaster Jan 2013 #1
warrprayer Jan 2013 #15
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #2
warrprayer Jan 2013 #8
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #13
warrprayer Jan 2013 #26
Ineeda Jan 2013 #40
valerief Jan 2013 #63
freshwest Jan 2013 #48
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #54
quinnox Jan 2013 #3
Autumn Jan 2013 #5
warrprayer Jan 2013 #11
Autumn Jan 2013 #18
warrprayer Jan 2013 #29
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #46
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2013 #41
SkyDaddy7 Jan 2013 #44
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #58
forestpath Jan 2013 #61
warrprayer Jan 2013 #14
Autumn Jan 2013 #4
bunnies Jan 2013 #6
warrprayer Jan 2013 #7
bunnies Jan 2013 #9
warrprayer Jan 2013 #17
Recursion Jan 2013 #10
warrprayer Jan 2013 #12
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #49
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #25
Recursion Jan 2013 #27
wakemewhenitsover Jan 2013 #42
mntleo2 Jan 2013 #53
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #60
mntleo2 Jan 2013 #62
L0oniX Jan 2013 #64
DainBramaged Jan 2013 #16
warrprayer Jan 2013 #19
quinnox Jan 2013 #20
warrprayer Jan 2013 #21
quinnox Jan 2013 #22
DainBramaged Jan 2013 #24
quinnox Jan 2013 #30
warrprayer Jan 2013 #31
JNelson6563 Jan 2013 #23
quinnox Jan 2013 #28
JNelson6563 Jan 2013 #36
freshwest Jan 2013 #50
warrprayer Jan 2013 #32
quinnox Jan 2013 #33
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #52
Autumn Jan 2013 #56
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #57
Autumn Jan 2013 #59
bvar22 Jan 2013 #34
dkf Jan 2013 #35
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #37
samsingh Jan 2013 #38
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #39
ProSense Jan 2013 #43
stlsaxman Jan 2013 #45
Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #47
freshwest Jan 2013 #51
Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #55

Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:14 PM

1. Wait, what? I thought we already had one of those.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:37 PM

15. link isn't working for me

... but it might be my computer...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:16 PM

2. Meh. Had 3 Jobs Bills blocked by GOP including one aimed at Veterans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:29 PM

8. true

wish they had presented those bills when we controlled congress and had a chance of passing them... or did they and not pass them anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:34 PM

13. Just when, exactly, do you think we controlled Congress--

and just who is "we," anyway?

What with Kennedy's terminal illness, the Franken seating battle, etc., Dems had a period of about 19 minutes with a theoretically filibuster-proof Senate. I say "theoretically" because there were enough Blue Dogs around at any given time to scotch anything progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:49 PM

26. when O took office

I was under the impression we had majority in the House and Senate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:36 PM

40. Jackpine Radical is correct. Here are the stats (try to remember them):

Democrats did not have a fillibuster-proof majority for two years -- that's a myth.

January 20, 2009 - After suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts.

April 28, 2009 news outlets issued the following report: Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has switched parties, which would give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

Despite the fact that the media hailed the party switch of Arlen Specter and claimed it gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate, the Minnesota seat still remained vacant. The Senate had 57 Democratic members and 2 Independents. Technically, the Senate was two members short, but I'm counting Senator Kennedy even though he was at home ill because he did cast a vote in June. 59

May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 56 Democratic members and 2 Independents. 58

July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. 58

July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy.

Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009.

The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority.

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown got the Kirk/Kennedy seat. Again it's 59 (That makes 4 months, not 2 years!!)

This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.

Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ineeda (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:56 PM

63. +1 gazillion

Thanks for the details!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:33 PM

48. One more time, as posted on alp's thread by Tx4obama:

My rebuttal to claim obama "had two years of total control with the Senate and House"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154

Here ya go ...

We didn't have a majority in congress for two years - more like TWO MONTHS

The meme that the “Democrats had control of the House and Senate” is a myth and here’s why: people keep forgetting that you need 60 to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.


January 20, 2009 – Edward Kennedy suffered a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, and his health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman challenged the election results. So on his inauguration Obama had 57 elected Democratic Senators… 55 Democrats and 2 Independents.

April 28, 2009 – Arlan Specter switches parties from Republican to Democratic. This gives the Democrats 58… 56 seated Democrats, 2 Independents. Al Franken still hasn’t been sworn in and Kennedy is sick. Still no 60 member majority.

May 15, 2009 – Senator Robert Byrd is admitted to the hospital reducing the number of Democratic votes to 57… 55 Democrats, 2 Independents.

July 7, 2009 – Senator Al Franken is sworn in bringing the Democratic votes back up to 58… 56 sitting Democrats, 2 Independents. No Senator Kennedy or Byrd due to illness.

July 21, 2009 – Senator Byrd Returns to the Senate making the count 59 seats – Still no Kennedy.

August 25, 2009 – Senator Kennedy dies and the seat remains vacant (for one full month) until…

September 24, 2009 – Interim Senator Paul Kirk is sworn in to fill Kennedy’s seat bringing the total Democratic votes to a filibuster proof majority of 60.


Remember to subtract the time/weeks (which total over a month) for the Senate's fall recess, Thanksgiving break, Christmas/NewYears break, etc.

February 4, 2010 - Scott Brown (R-MA) is sworn in taking over Senator Kennedy's seat.

So really the Democrats only had a little more than two months (total time when Senate was in session) of a majority in the Senate – not 2 years (even less when you consider that Senator Lieberman sided with the Republicans most of the time). Because they didn’t have a majority, nothing could be automatically pushed through the Senate and concessions had to be made on the healthcare legislation in order for the bill to pass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154#post3

And Tx4obama credits Bluebelle:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021292150#post94

But here's the link for all of that:


President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years!

Here: http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html

The page/link above is a GREAT page to bookmark.

It pretty much has all the things that I've been typing out the past couple of years, but it includes a full timeline, photos, and a chart


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154#post17

Obama protected what remains of those programs and had all of his initiatives to expand them voted down, not just in that time frame in congress, but by the media and the voters in 2010.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:51 PM

54. Healthcare sucked the air out of everything...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:17 PM

3. that is ok, Obama has done great things such as

 

making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, which will mean serious cuts in social programs down the line, and mandated corporate approved private health insurance for all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:20 PM

5. And you forgot he offered a chained CPI to the pukes.

That was a hell of a shot across the bow in the poverty war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:32 PM

11. Was watching History Channel last night

... about the Presidents. When I saw everything LBJ did I was floored. Had he stayed out of Vietnam, he woulsd have been outstanding. It said LBJ grew up in terrible poverty, and had empathy for the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:39 PM

18. I think Vietnam was what kept him from being a great President too.

He sure could intimidate those politicians too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:50 PM

29. He peed on his own gravesite

in front of a group of reporters while giving a press conference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:21 PM

46. He was just making a point

Let's hope for the reporters sake, he pointed well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:42 PM

41. Vietnam was why he chose not to run in 68

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:58 PM

44. LBJ enjoyed a very friendly Congress...

compared to what it is like today. Had the GOP of today existed back then he would not have passed much of what he did, if any. REALITY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:00 PM

58. I've read 3 of Robert Caro's

volumes on LBJ...The 4th is awaiting my attention...Caro is working on a 5th.... Eventually Vietnam will be seen as a bipartisan mistake, and hopefully the truth will be more widely known as to just who dragged that war on forever. I just read "America's Stolen Narrative" by Robert Parry.... He reports that Richard Nixon worked against Johnson's efforts for a negotiated peace. Through Anna Chennault Nixon promised the leader of South Vietnam a better deal than he would get from Humphrey...and promised to keep the war running for 4 more years, with lots of money for 4 years after that. So, the South Vietnamese, after agreeing to meet in Paris for peace negotiations, found one excuse after another to delay the peace.

LBJ was eccentric, to put it kindly, but he was an incredible president is many ways....better than any Democratic president since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:19 PM

61. So true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:36 PM

14. Yaaaaaaay for us poor pople!

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:18 PM

4. I hit rec because you really had me excited for half a minute

and I'm going to leave the rec because a Democratic President actually did those things. Once upon a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:24 PM

6. Is this another 'Obama sucks' thread?

Its disguised so brilliantly I had to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:27 PM

7. No, no!

It was an honest mistake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:30 PM

9. :)

Glad to hear. They get tiresome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:38 PM

17. thanks :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:30 PM

10. How well did those work?

*shrug*

There's a joke that LBJ was talking to an old man in Appalachia and saying "I'm fightin' a war on poverty". The old guy looked at his suit and limo and said, "Yessir. Looks like you're winnin', too"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:34 PM

12. really?

"Looking back on his childhood, Lyndon Johnson would recall that "poverty was so common, we didn't know it had a name." The Johnson home on the banks of the Pedernales River in Stonewall, Texas lacked electricity and indoor plumbing. But the Johnson family chose not to define themselves in terms of what they lacked.

Lyndon Johnson was an early witness to his mother's idealism and his father's commitment to rural populism. Young Lyndon would eagerly accompany his father, Sam, who held a seat formerly occupied by his father, to meetings of the Texas legislature. On the campaign trail, Lyndon learned to mimic the gestures of the glad-handing politician. The political arena was the place where his father seemed to come alive, much to the delight of his constituents, and to the consternation of Lyndon's mother."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/lbj-early/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:34 PM

49. My mother was a volunteer for the Kennedy and Connally campaigns in Texas

I was around 8 at the time and she took me to several of the volunteer events she participated in to help get both elected. It was my introduction to the world of politics and have been a loyal Democrat since. Unfortunately, the party isn't anywhere near the party for the people as it was back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:48 PM

25. quite well

The thing is that poverty as it was circa 1960 is unthinkable by contemporary American standards.

We eliminated that part of the poverty spectrum that was addressable through simple measures. It didn't end poverty, which might require a fundamental reshaping of our society. I did, however, nearly eliminate things like people literally starving to death, rickets being commonplace in some areas, elderly people who had not had a real meal in a decade.

It is easy and cheap to give a starving person a meal. Much harder and more costly to give them an education.

As to whether any of that is a proper analogy to Obama, in 2013, that's a whole 'nother thing. I don't know that 1960s poverty programs, appropriate to their time, would be the best approach today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:49 PM

27. I'm a fan of alleviating poverty by giving poor people money

I know, it's simplistic (and, yes, I do actually know it's actually simplistic and causes some of its own problems) but there we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:43 PM

42. Good point.

The thing is, the word "poverty" seems taboo, given its scarcity in the political dialogue these days. The last time I heard it mentioned at the forefront of issues was when John Edwards made it a top issue in his campaign. (Too bad he turned out to be such a schmuck in just about every other way!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:40 PM

53. The problem with this is ...

...On every street corner stands a homeless person begging, who is invisible to the thousands passing them every day. It is just as graphic as any Depression era black and white photo and most just walk by and pretend REAL pverty is is South America or Africa or Asia, certainly not in the U.S!

Johnson's plan reduced poverty almost in half in 4 years at over 40% and the various programs they implemented were aimed at young adults, the elderly, children, disabled and teens. It worked and frankly whatever times they were, little is different now ~ indeed it has gotten far worse.

One of the most helpful programs was 235. This was a housing program that encouraged the poor to buy their own homes at the income they could afford (approximately 1/3 of their income, whatever that was). This lifted many a low wage worker out of poverty and allowed kids to grow up in stable neighborhoods where people had pride in their homes and communities. There were both "scattered site" housing where already existing housing could be purchased, and new housing.

It was much like Section 8 is today but it allowed the resident to OWN their homes. They taught home maintenance, financial security, taxes and investing, even things like decorating on a budget and cooking and food preservation classes. They encouraged fully paid college (where the resident could remain in their homes and go to school instead of work for a wage). The buyer agreed to remain in this home for at least 8 years before selling or leaving their home ~ and when they sold their homes, they paid back all the subsidies they had received, so in the long run the tax dollars invested would be paid back but the owner got to keep the investments they put into their home along with any profit they made from the increased worth of their property.

God forbid the poor people should own anything of their own! That program morphed into selling homes to upper income people for pennies on the dollar and then renting those homes at subsidized rates to renters, giving lots of perks and breaks for the owner, who enjoyed far fewer restrictions. They do have to keep these homes up to code ~ but get subsidies for doing so along with other perks for being so "nice" as to rent to a Section 8 family. Renting causes families to never be able to remain in one place long enough to establish relationships with neighbors and establishments, and become a part of their communities. There is no pride in ownership and they will never see a cent of rent back plus they will always have to relocate about every 2-5 years. But hey, the upper income WILL profit off the backs of these low income renters and ain't this just grand and far better! We do this for upper income landlords to this day using HUD money. And the poor? Forget abouddit!

Lots of other programs were also implemented that are now shaved down to almost nothing. Head Start USED to be not only preschool for kids, but a place for parents to find employment and go to college while working at Head Start in the classroom and support services while being paid full time. This enabled many a low wage worker to move up after getting 4 year degrees and move on to even better paid positions. But when Reagan came into office and implemented Reaganomics, HS began to be cut, cut, cut and teacher's wages became so bad they were turning to the same resources that incoming parents needed and they had no chance for college anymore. Now one is lucky if their kid gets in, the teachers, who are paid poverty wages, have to purchase materials themselves since the budgets are so bad, and no parents would dream they could go to college or even get a job there.

Over the past 4 decades, the War on Poverty has become The War on The Poor and even Progressives in the1980s and 1990s piled on to people in poverty and fueled hatred and blame for the poor supporting drastic reductions in these programs. Those of us who were first enthusiastic supporters of the new programs and then saw the declines, tried to tell the middle class they were next, but we were denigrated and called idealists. Now look who is falling into this mire and crying because there is no safety net and no way out? Boo Hoo! The very ones who were applauding the cuts, that is who. Once they fall into the abyss, nobody cares, nobody will listen since they themselves propel the meme that poor people "choose" their condition and deserve all the consequences of poverty, and now they will never be heard.

Since a welfare mom is only allowed 1 year of school if she is so lucky to be supported to do that, $2Billion to marry off poor women could buy a whole lot of education instead of the additional 10s of $Billions being sunk into those rip-off private 1 year colleges that do not do a thing to advance a low wage worker. In my community, we asked for statistics about how many women they allowed to go to college the previous year instead of pushing them into slave labor (literally they make these women work for corporations they subsidize for no pay) or some McJob that just keeps the family in poverty. Know the answer? 2 (two). But hey they have these "Workforce" center that actually give $500 bonuses to the contracted private companies they have hired to "help" these women find employment. Any job whether or not it will pay the rent, is considered a "success" (yeah what a success ...for the social worker getting those bonuses), I am not making this up.

But what the hell? After forcing these women into those jobs and finding they cannot support anyone not even themselves on those crappy wages, let's go in and take their kids for neglect. Let's traumatize these kdis for life (more grant money to treat them), put them in dangerous environments where they are 5-7X more likly to be abused, raped, and even killed than if we had left them at home and actually supported their parents? Why this is the *only* way to "save our children" (and our middle class wallets) since taking them while refusing to support the parent brings in a cool $6-8000 PER MONTH PER CHILD in gub'mint funds for foster care! This way we get to hate and blame the poor, become gatekeepers with power over people's life and death while "helping" the people whose very existence employs us and then we can keep our j-o-o-o-o-b-s.

Ca-CHING!!!!

I will try to keep my hopes up, but frankly I will not hold my breath about this new "War on Poverty". The people in power are quite content to NEVER blame a bankster for defrauding the whole country out of $Trillions after enjoying as much in tax breaks and then turn around and make rules for low come programs that force anyone applying for them to be Philadelphia lawyers. Obama still thinks that marrying low income moms off to some "sugar daddy" will solve the whole problem and sinks more than $2Billion into this. The problem is (and we told them when Bu$h implemented this dummass program) they have no way to help these woman find these men (who are considered wallets with legs) nor do they consider that most women on welfare are there because of domestic violence issues (over 70%). I fear these are the kind of "solutions" these people will implement ~ after all it is different times now and the Johnson era War on Poverty just does not fit in today's world ...


A bitter and long time activist for the poor, who has seen it all

Cat in Seattle

My 2 cents and more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mntleo2 (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:15 PM

60. ^^^ Thanks for writing all of that. Calling it out here in hopes more might read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:22 PM

62. Hate to say it like I did, but I am skeptical of this new "war"

For decades poor citizens have been Charlie Brown and their local DHS offices along with about every mega-non profit are Lucy with the football. Every time some program comes along that works, another nimrod comes along and either ruins it with their damn "re-organizing" or chokes the hell of it by not giving it enough funding to make it work. Then they it's a waste and it needs to be eliminated.

I am not trashing small non-profits who do the REAL work mega-nons and the government refuse to ~ who are also without any support whatsoever since the mega-nons and government agencies gobble all the funding up.

Oh I could do another mega-rant about those large non-profits, they are simply mini-Cayman Islands for the rich to hide their money in tax deductible "donations" and 6 figure paychecks for their bored spouses and relatives in "executive" positions. These mega non-profits do little or nothing for their "missions" they actually collect on the average of $54-67,000 PER CLIENT and yet spend on the average of less than $2000 in direct services. Nobody ever asks where that other $52 -65,000 goes since they are supposedly "saving the little baybees". NOT! More like saving the wittle wifey and her beamer ...

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Cat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mntleo2 (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:14 PM

64. "War on Poverty" = war over poverty. Corporations.gov would rather have war than help people. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:38 PM

16. I guess with the inauguration in a couple of days, the ghosts are coming out

to try and dampen the spirit of the celebration.


Ain't fucking happening here bub.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:40 PM

19. say WHAT?

Dude - I'm revving up my pom -poms!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:40 PM

20. lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:42 PM

21. Some things from Texas ROCK



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:42 PM

22. Dain, people are allowed to make threads that don't

 

meet your approval. Why not make another cheer-leading inauguration thread? Go for it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:48 PM

24. I did sorry you disagree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:51 PM

30. alright, way to go!

 

Now everyone is happy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:52 PM

31. If it's any help

I will get down on both knees Monday and thank whatever might be up there that I am not watching the Mitt Romney inauguration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:46 PM

23. If only they were half as clever & witty

as they seem to think they are. At least then their nonsense would be less tedious.

Julie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:50 PM

28. well, it does require a sense of humor

 

and some folks seem to have a hard time with that basic requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:55 PM

36. *yawn*

Frankly I find the same "joke" repeated ad nauseum to be boring and sophomoric.

But hey, it works for some I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:35 PM

50. The despair buzzards never give up, huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:53 PM

32. sorry D.U.!

gotta run - I am out of minutes on my poor person public computer! (no shit!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:54 PM

33. see ya later!

 

Hope you make more threads in the future, this one was a hoot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:38 PM

52. Obama hates you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:57 PM

56. Funniest post I have ever seen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #56)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:00 PM

57. To be fair ... Obama also hates all of the rest of us too ...

At least that's what my friends from the Tea Party keep telling me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:55 PM

59. Nice try JoePhilly. You used Obama to make a slam against the poster

because you didn't have the nerve to say you hated what warrprayer posted. Any person not twisted by repiglican values who has payed the slightest attention to Obama can see that the man hasn't a bit of hated for anyone in his heart or mind. It's just not there. Hate can not be in the same place as compassion and kindness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:55 PM

34. I see what you did here!



DURec!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:55 PM

35. So did poverty win or lose?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:06 PM

37. We'll have to see what he does, but it doesn't look good.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:27 PM

38. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:29 PM

39. More lame bullshit. Kick this up for full ridicule of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:44 PM

43. Here's some stuff to add

to your reading list.

Obama Heads the Right Way on Poverty, Jobs

Scholar William Julius Wilson tells us what it will take for more blacks and the poor to have jobs.

By: William Julius Wilson

(The Root) -- Despite all the rhetoric about reclaiming the American dream for middle-class Americans in this past presidential election, Barack Obama has done more for lower-income Americans than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Quite frankly, I think that Obama's programs prevented poverty -- including concentrated poverty -- from rapidly rising over the past several years, considering the terrible economy.

Obama's stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) earmarked $80 billion dollars for low-income Americans, which included an extension of unemployment benefits, a temporary increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit and substantial additional funds for food stamps (what we now call the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). It also included nearly $4 billion in job training and workforce-enhancement programs, and $2 billion for neighborhood-stabilization efforts.

Moreover, I consider the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly termed Obamacare) as an antipoverty program. Over the long term, this health care legislation will significantly benefit lower-income Americans. Indeed, the share of Americans who are uninsured declined between 2010 and 2011. And this improvement was in part due to a provision of the health care bill that allows children to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until they reach age 26.

Also, Obama worked out a deal with Congress to address the impact of the recession on lower-income Americans, a negotiation that led to a 13-month extension of federal unemployment benefits for more than 7 million jobless workers, as well as the continuation of programs that benefit the poor and working classes, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit and the 2 percent reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for one year -- all of which put more money in the hands of ordinary Americans. Finally, I should mention the $144 billion package passed in early 2012 by Congress to extend the payroll-tax cut and unemployment insurance, programs that Obama pushed.

- more -

http://www.theroot.com/views/obama-heads-right-way-poverty-jobs


<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html


Esther Duflo: Obama taps poverty’s ‘rock star.’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/13/obama-taps-esther-duflo-poverty-s-rock-star.html

Feed the Future is the United States Government's global hunger and food security initiative
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/

Good stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Original post)


Response to warrprayer (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:22 PM

47. I hope he brings back the work projects like with the "New Deal"

For me, it would be great! They worked on Infrastructure and "Communications". Communications are my thing! I would love to get back in! Sadly, a this point in time it is not what you know but how you know. If he does do a push like back then, that can/will/must change!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:38 PM

51. Second term, more flexibility and OFA still at work. Here's our part:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:53 PM

55. I'm pretty sure that this time around many a red state will go blue.

Some of the latest polls are showing the middle guys that don't really go party when they vote, are leaning blue! And they are what we need to keep on our side when it is time for the vote. Those are the numbers that tips congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread