• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child poverty up in America by 1.7 million since 2008

Repeating a lie doesn't make it a fact.



Irrelevant rebuttals are the best you can do.

You just said it was a lie, and offered up nothing substantial to prove your point.

Typical and lazy.
 
Irrelevant rebuttals are the best you can do.

You just said it was a lie, and offered up nothing substantial to prove your point.

Typical and lazy.

Your post to me was completely irrelevant. Why am I going to waste time with your red herrings?
 
Your post to me was completely irrelevant. Why am I going to waste time with your red herrings?



No, it was highly relevant.

You made a lazy attempt to qualify the causes of the 2008 Financial crisis by offering some generic and INCORRECT description.

Why ? Who knows. Maybe you're more loyal to some twisted ideology than you are the truth.

But anyway, I corrected it.

You can try to peddle your misunderstanding of what happened in the run up to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis by calling it " neo liberalism " all you want.

But I'm going to challenge your nonsense and correct it. And no calling it a " red herring " doesn't count as a thoughtful rebuttal either.

There was a unprecedented amount of Government intervention into the free markets during the run up to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis.

That directly contradicts your " Neo-Liberalism " assertion.

So much that it eventually bankrupted two iconic American Financial Institutions and left them holding over 5 Trillion in debt.

Laws and agendas put in place in the early to mid 90s that all rested upon the manufactured false narrative of " discriminatory lending practices ".

Neo-Liberalism ? LOL ! Hardly.
 
No, it was highly relevant.

You made a lazy attempt to qualify the causes of the 2008 Financial crisis by offering some generic and INCORRECT description.

Why ? Who knows. Maybe you're more loyal to some twisted ideology than you are the truth.

But anyway, I corrected it.

You can try to peddle your misunderstanding of what happened in the run up to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis by calling it " neo liberalism " all you want.

But I'm going to challenge your nonsense and correct it. And no calling it a " red herring " doesn't count as a thoughtful rebuttal either.

There was a unprecedented amount of Government intervention into the free markets during the run up to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis.

That directly contradicts your " Neo-Liberalism " assertion.

So much that it eventually bankrupted two iconic American Financial Institutions and left them holding over 5 Trillion in debt.

Laws and agendas put in place in the early to mid 90s that all rested upon the manufactured false narrative of " discriminatory lending practices ".

Neo-Liberalism ? LOL ! Hardly.

My point is that it was not solely Obama's fault. I don't give a flip if you want to believe the subprime mortgage mess was caused by government regulations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread or my post to the other poster.
 
My point is that it was not solely Obama's fault. I don't give a flip if you want to believe the subprime mortgage mess was caused by government regulations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread or my post to the other poster.


Obama sure didn't help the situation.

His response to a systemic financial crisis was to pass a law that guaranteed unquantifiable cost increases on consumers and businesses years before it was to be implemented.

What a way to guarantee years of economic stagnation.

Companies and Corporations just sat on their hands and waited it out.
Hell you think its bad now, wait until after the election and Obamacare goes into full effect.

That law has also led to large amounts of " new jobs " being part time.

The tax increases and cost increases meant that Corporations and Businesses would be sitting on their profits instead of pushing them back into the economy.

Hell, if you want to know how screwed up this economy is look at what Corporations are doing with their profits.

They would rather buy back over valued shares than risk a nickel of their principle in a Obama's economy.

Obama's jobs plan was a ridiculous " green jobs " initiative that was supposed to create a manufacturing base for products that no one wanted and that could OBVIOUSLY be manufactured in China cheaper.

Its like it was patterned after a 5th graders Science project.

Amd for the last 6 years he and his party have made it worse by perpetuating the Rich should pay their fair share rhetoric.

Instead of pushing economic policies that WORK, they're more concerned with pushing decisive narratives meant to rope in really stupid voters.

QE was supposed to create access to credit and get the economy moving. It did no such thing.

The actions of the Banks and the Businesses continue to expose the reality if just how weak this economy is 6 years in.

All that liquidity is sitting static on the Feds Balance sheets marked as excess reserves.

Obama's political motivations have led to him leaving the Southern border wide open. Large numbers of new jobs created haven't even gone to American citizens.

He doesn't put the American people first, he puts his ideology first. And thats had a substantial effect, a negative effect on Children in this Country.
 
We do just that with public schools now. I am not advocating that only the gov't run such facilities, only that they fund them. There have been many successful folks that were "graduates" of orphanages (many run by non-profit private concerns) and they generally outperform the foster care alternative. Please see post #72 in this thread, or research that matter for yourself. Being able to breed is not the same as being able to properly care for and raise children.

Sending kids to public schools is a choice made by parents. So, would the orphanages also be a choice to be made by the parents?
 
Not trying to be cute, but what really is "child poverty"? Wouldn't the whole family be poor? So if child poverty went up, wouldn't the rise in poverty be at least double that. If all the folks weren't single parents then even more.
 
Wow, both your rhetoric and your tone leave me to believe there is at least one glaring lie in your profile data. Bless your heart.

Still unable to articulate a rational argument I see. Not surprising really. Your first post had democratic party apologist written all over it and your second one confirms it. How could a progressive ever really be a progressive if they do not follow the edicts of the fillers of buckets of warm spit? One of life's unanswered questions I suppose.
 
'In the United States, where extreme child poverty has increased more in this downturn than during the recession of 1982, social safety net measures provided important support to poor working families but were less effective for the extreme poor without jobs. Child poverty has increased in 34 out of 50 states since the start of the crisis. In 2012, 24.2 million children were living in poverty, a net increase of 1.7 million from 2008.'

Child poverty up by 2.6m in rich world


Thank you Obama and the Fed...not.

i guess i have a question of what they define as poverty,and whether wages were pitted against cost of living or not.the latter makes an epic difference on poverty numbers.
 
Right because cutting SNAP, refusing to set a reasonable minimum wage, and refusing to assure women with jobs the same as men, have the same spending power as men,.... those things that the Congress, Republican House of Reps, have stopped in their tracks,.... those have nothing to do with it. It's all Obama's fault.

Obama has killed more jobs than he's created. Therein lies the problem.

The minimum wage is the same as it was in 08. Women have no less spending power than men, than they did in 08. Nice try at blaming everyone, but Obama.
 
Obama has killed more jobs than he's created. Therein lies the problem.

The minimum wage is the same as it was in 08. Women have no less spending power than men, than they did in 08. Nice try at blaming everyone, but Obama.

You are wrong about the minimum wage.
 
Back
Top Bottom