In response to:

5 Groups Of Obama Voters That Are Being Crushed By Democrats

MIke3094 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 8:47 AM
The war on poverty will be 50 years old next year. I don't know how much money has been spent on poverty but we are losing the war. It's time to change direction. Democrats are the party of NO. As Rand Paul recently said Democrats are the party of limited choices and freedom.
rthomas675 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 9:40 AM
The war on poverty will never be won, it is statistically impossible. You can fight it 'til the end of time, you can spend more money than Bill Gates has a thousand times over, and it will not go away. Not ever!! One third of the population will always live above average, one third of the population will always live within the average, one third of the population will live below average. If you want to break that out further and add the extremely wealthy on one end, and poverty on the other it will still work the same way because of the laws of statistics. That is the way statistics work, politicians know that, and they use it to convince you that they should give your money away to someone else. **** cont...
rthomas675 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 9:45 AM
The more of your money they give away; the more you have to make to allow them to do so. As your salary increases, and you make the wealthy, more wealthy, the poverty line likewise increases, so although the government has given a part of your income to the impoverished, they remained impoverished because you had to make more money to allow that to happen, and therefore the poverty line is raised by the laws of statistics. The only form of government without poverty is "True Communism" not socialism.
renny4 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 9:17 AM
$13 trillion, almost as much as the national debt, and the % of poverty is only rising.
Earl29 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 9:12 AM
The war on poverty is, and always was, a war on the poor. If you wanted to keep people poor, you could not envision any better means.
johnm h Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 9:23 AM
Since that is the predictable result, one must conclude that expansion of poverty and dependency was the objective. Were it not they might do something different that didn't make matters worse.
Joseph64 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 9:26 AM
And what's worse is that it is the government that gets to define what the word "poverty" means. So while we might define poverty one way, the government might have a completely different definition and that definition can be changed at any time. There are people today who are considered to be "in poverty" who would not have even been considered even remotely poor 40 or 50 years ago. The reason they keep moving the bar is so they can get more people signed up for programs and dependent on the government.
alphonsejones Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 8:56 AM
the estimates are in the range of $25 trillion dollars

Hollywood, the mainstream media and the public school system are all almost entirely controlled by people and groups friendly to the Democrat Party. Yet and still, even with that almost overwhelming advantage, Democrats can't do any better than a rough parity with the Republicans. If the tables were turned and the GOP controlled what you see on TV, in the news and what your kids are taught at school the same way the Democrats do, the Republican Party would win every presidential election and would permanently maintain unassailable majorities in Congress.

So, why aren't the Democrats running away...