@station hiney I'd like you to give an example of how the democrats are restricting your freedoms. The government and laws can also bring liberty by protecting rights and freedoms.
It is ur bad ... Raising the minimum wage yet raising the taxes to pay for unneeded unwanted social programs that the government has no business being involved in such as the "aca" (I include this in taxes as u are forced by the government to pay for something) increases not decrease the poverty lvl making it so that even more people must become depend on the government hand out and programs to survive ... The policies laid out are not for the betterment of the public welfare but a way to further control of the population and a way to strengthen it's power base by forcing the very people it claims to help into a situation where as they must continue to vote them in to retain the same lvl of "help"
He's trying to. Republicans are against it. While I'm at it, it's an indication of just how detached from reality many conservatives are when they use terms like "slaves". Making sure people have enough to eat, access to health care, a decent wage, and equality is the same as slavery only in the minds of people who have no clue what slavery really is.
Hiney that makes no sense. By taxing people who are already grossly wealthy, and by giving fairer wages to underpaid lower class workers, and ensuring health care to people of all classes, how has Obama made people poorer? Among other things he's also made efforts to improve the education system so that children learn more effectively and so that more modern/effective teaching methods are used.
No one taxes the wealthy u know why? Because both parties are the wealthy they tax the middle class they tax it to a point it becomes more costly just to get by at all and to a point that the costs out weight the wages they make, making the poverty lvl higher more inclusive to those near the bottom, the people who are trying to be self sufficient and work for a living find themselves in that poverty line because it grows faster then wages every do
Obama redid the taxes a while ago so that the upper class would get taxed more than the lower class. Something like price brackets so the first $10,000 you make isn't taxed at all, then you jump into the next tax bracket as you make more money in a year, maxing out at around 30%. I'm not American so I don't know the specifics on your tax system. I believe for the business class he didn't revamp it though. It's like a flat tax of 13% for business income.
There you go again with your egocentric thinking. Unneeded and unwanted by whom? You? Millions of Americans need them and want them, and social programs have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty. Hell, Romney's dad was on welfare when he moved the family to the U.S. from Mexico. It's just another example of the typical "Screw you, I got mine" conservative attitude. Then you try to justify it with the claim that the Democrats push those programs to "control" the population and secure votes. My ass. They do it because people need them. If it makes people vote for them, too bad. It's not like Republicans don't do the same thing. What do you think Tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations are all about?
I agree with u republicans do do the same type of thing ..... Rep. Get paid off to secure their voting base Dem. oppress and buy off theirs Both are crap I never said I was a republican btw
USA political system is broken but neither party wants to change it because it will cause them to lose power.
HOMEARTICLESABOUT US LOGINREGISTER Democrat Disaster Cities Democrat rule destroys cities more thoroughly than enemy bombs. By Will Offensicht | September 23, 2011 PrintEmail to FriendComments (15) Some time back, CNN quoted a politician and asked who said it: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it." Every politician talks about poverty because it's become a serious issue - regardless of morality, our many entitlement programs are taking our society down. There is also a human cost. The US Census Bureau says that nearly a third of the residents of Detroit and Buffalo live in poverty as the government defines it. This is such a waste of human potential that both liberals and conservatives agree that Something Should Be Done. Nobody claims to be pro-poverty, but if you ask for solutions, ideas break down along party lines. Liberals want to increase taxes to give more to the poor, conservatives want to create opportunities and nudge the poor into jobs by cutting welfare as Pres. Clinton did. Liberals and conservatives have thundered rhetoric at each other for years, but we finally have some facts. CNN gave the US Census rankings for cities with the most poverty and showed how long these cities have been run by Democrats: Poverty Rank City Democrat Since 1 Detroit, MI 1961 2 Buffalo, NY 1954 3 Cincinnati, OH 1984 4 Cleveland, OH 1989 5 Miami, FL forever 6 St. Lewis, MO 1949 7 El Paso, TX forever 8 Milwaukee, WI 1908 9 Philadelphia, PA 1952 10 Newark, NJ 1907 Five of our poorest cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years. The two other cities on the list, Miami, FL and El Paso, TX have never had Republican mayors. Not ever. Correlation is not Causation The fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it. Fortunately, sociologists and economists have studied some of our older cities long enough to figure out what's going on. We now know why Democratic policies lead to poverty. Two Harvard economists described the "Curley Effect," named after Mayor James Curley of Boston who was elected to Boston's Board of Aldermen in 1904 despite being in prison on a fraud conviction when the election was held. Mayor Curley showed Democrats how to win elections by taxing productive people and channeling the proceeds to less well-off groups. This bought Irish votes. As taxes went higher, productive citizens who tended to vote Republican fled to the suburbs, which tipped the balance further and further in favor of Democratic candidates. In cities like Baltimore and Detroit, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1 or more. Is it any wonder that they've become single-party cesspools with no hope for change? The Democrat heartland. Driving productive citizens away may be good politics but it isn't good economics. 100 years ago when Henry Ford introduced the Model T, Detroit was the "place to be" for ambitious entrepreneurs. Tens of thousands of blacks were drawn from the South to fill well-paying jobs in the industrial North. After years of liberal misrule, Detroit has fallen so far that "black flight" has become common and major parts of the city are turning back into wilderness. Baltimore hasn't suffered quite as badly, but it, too, shows the damage done by Democratic policies. In 1950, Baltimore's median income was 7% above the national average; in 2011, after 48 years of Democrat misrule, it's 22% below. Boston, where the Curley effect originated, was in worse shape in 1980 than Baltimore is now, although it never got as bad as Detroit or Newark. In 1980, Boston's population had fallen 30% in the preceding 30 years and its crime rate was higher than Baltimore's today. Now, Boston is booming and crime has dropped. What turned it around? Did Republicans take over city hall? Not exactly; state voters trimmed the excess taxes and productive people moved back in. Massachusetts voters finally had enough and adopted a Proposition which forced Boston to cut taxes by 75%. Just as California's Proposition 13 cut taxes enough to revive San Francisco and Oakland, people returned to Boston. Its population rose 10% since 1980 and its crime rate is now 25% lower than Baltimore's. Alas, tax reform seldom comes from within. In Baltimore's election last Sept. 13, the incumbent, who'd promised an inconsequential tax cut of 2% spread over 9 years, won re-election just as a classic big-city Democrat won the Mayor's office in Washington, DC. Turnarounds in Boston, San Francisco, and Oakland couldn't come from within because the Democratic political machine had too much muscle after so many years of robbing the cities and driving away affluent voters. It took statewide initiatives to slash tax rates so that the cities could survive. Mayor Curley Lives On These turnarounds happened in spite of the best efforts of the Democratic political machines. The positive effects of slashing tax rates after years of boosting taxes "to benefit the poor" and the staunch Democrat opposition to such proven common sense demonstrates that the Curley effect is alive and well. Taxing the productive to buy votes from government employees and the unproductive is good politics - it supported Democratic machines for decades on end - but it wrecks societies where Curley machines become entrenched. Even though Democrats raise taxes in the name of helping minorities and the less well off, the latest census showed that minorities are leaving high tax states for places with lower taxes and fewer social programs but more jobs. By the way, the quote about forcing the poor out of poverty which opened this article? It was from that arch right-winger Benjamin Franklin. The trouble, as Franklin clearly foresaw, is that most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. The heavy lifting of growing up, taking responsibility, and doing it yourself is just too much work for anyone to do it if they don't have to, as any parent knows. Democratic policies are society-killers over time. Let's hope our voters understand that in 2012.
From reading dragons info and other sources it appears people are paying more taxes because companies are paying much less. That's an issue in more countries than just the USA.
Remember when the US ran a budget surplus, and then the wheels started to come off in the early 2000s. Back then, right majorities in congress with Bush at the helm stamped a law to significantly reduce the dividend tax rate to just 15% so that individuals like Mitt Romney can just sit back and pay less taxes than the average Joe. Most people cannot afford to take advantage of owning stock that pays dividends to them (on a meaningful level). And many are living paycheck to paycheck. They talk about "the family" falling apart and being corrupted but when you have people stressed out working two jobs how can you even find time to raise a kid properly?? Yet these are the same people who complain about food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc ...even during recessions! Reality is....it's the rich who get stinking drunk with breaks and loopholes. And they've actually convinced nearly half of America to vote for them each and every election lol. They are the types who slash jobs and send them overseas, constantly crying foul about how they don't earn enough to employ people at home. Biggest lie I've ever seen. No wonder they don't want their base to become educated. The less they know, the easier it is to put em in line and back on the hamster wheel.
Yes, i would agree that too much group think can cause damaging results. I've already pointed to an example of where conservatives didnt sink a city, but an entire state: "Republicans and conservative economists continue claiming cutting taxes for the rich is key to full employment, wealth for the masses, government flush with money, and a robust economy. In fact, Kansas Republican Governor Sam Brownback and the Republican legislature were so confident that slashing safety nets, cutting education, and spending a budget surplus on tax cuts for the rich would produce an economic bonanza, they gave the wealthy well over a billion dollars in unfunded tax cuts that has the state’s economy starved of revenue. However, despite warnings the state will be bankrupt in two years, more than 100 Kansas Republicans swearing to help replace Brownback with a Democrat for governor, and a credit agency downgrading Kansas credit. Kansas is lagging behind the rest of the nation in creating jobs besides facing a revenue shortfall of massive proportions."
Let's take a look at the national picture. "Are 97 of the nation's 100 poorest counties in red states? July 29th, 2014 - A meme circulating on Twitter and other social media recently caught our eye. Created by the liberal group Occupy Democrats, it said, "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states. But tell me again how Republican policies grow the economy?" This was a variation on a few memes we’ve checked previously -- that nine out of the 10 poorest states are red states (we rated this Mostly True) and that Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes (also Mostly True). While the meme’s suggestion that "Republican policies" are causing poverty is too subjective a question to be fact-checked, we decided to take a closer look at the set-up to the claim -- that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." First, we’ll explain our methodology. To determine the nation’s 100 poorest counties, we downloaded data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This data covers five years ending in 2012, and includes more than 3,000 counties and county equivalents (such as Louisiana parishes). This data enabled us to rank-order these jurisdictions based on two commonly used measurements -- median income, and percentage of the population in poverty. As for determining whether a state is "red" or "blue," we decided to define it by whether the state voted for President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012. This means we counted North Carolina and Indiana as red states, since Obama lost them in 2012 after winning them in 2008. (Though either way, the differences would have been marginal.) So how did the data turn out? For median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states. Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states: 1. Owsley County, Ky. 2. Jefferson County, Miss. 3. Wolfe County, Ky. 4. Brooks County, Texas 5. McCreary County, Ky. 6. Hudspeth County, Texas 7. Hancock County, Tenn. 8. Jackson County, Ky. 9. Clay County, Ky. 10. Holmes County, Miss. For percentage of residents in poverty, we found that 93 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states. Here are the 10 with the highest poverty rates, all of them in red states: 1. Shannon County, S.D. 2. Clay County, Ga. 3. East Carroll Parish, La. 4. Sioux County, N.D. 5. Todd County, S.D. 6. Hudspeth County, Texas 7. Holmes County, Miss. 8. Corson County, S.D. 9. Wolfe County, Ky. 10. Humphreys County, Miss. So there are some differences between the most recent Census data and what the meme said, but they are pretty small. Numerically, we don’t have much to quibble with. Our bigger question concerns whether it’s significant that a lot of poor counties are located in red states. There’s reason for at least a bit of skepticism. For starters, the list is dominated by rural areas. Generally speaking, rural areas have a lower cost of living, so the small income you make in a poor, rural Texas county is going to go further than it would if you lived in a poor, urban area like Detroit or Camden, N.J. This raises questions about how comparatively disadvantaged poor Americans are in rural and urban areas. Also, rural areas are areas where Republicans tend to do well electorally. By contrast, impoverished areas of big cities are big enough population-wise to be balanced by more affluent neighborhoods, and these poor urban areas are often (though not always) in blue states. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the counties on the list are located in Appalachia, particularly in such states as Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and Georgia. That’s a region that has suffered economically for generations -- long predating the time when Republicans took over from Democrats in most elected offices. In Appalachia, "it’s clear there’s a regional problem, born of isolation, geographic and political; exploitation, of timber and coal; and poor education," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky. Finally, there’s an eccentricity that shaped both of the top-100 lists. Each is dominated by three states: Texas, Georgia and Kentucky. What ties together these three states? They have a lot of counties. In fact, these three states rank first, second and third on the list of states that have the most counties. Texas has 254, Georgia 159 and Kentucky 120. This means that these three states have lots of rural, small-population counties, so they take up a disproportionate share of the spots on these lists. On each list, these three states collectively account for more than 40 percent of the counties listed. Importantly, each of these three states are red states. If some of the bigger blue states had been sliced into as many counties as Texas, Georgia and Kentucky were, some of those blue-state counties might have been poor and rural, and that could have changed the complexion of the list. As it is, blue states tend to have smaller numbers of counties. New York has 62, California has 57, Washington state has 39, Oregon has 36, New Jersey has 21 and Massachusetts has just 14. Our ruling The meme said that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." According to the most recent data, that’s a few percentage points high, but not by much. However, measuring a county’s lack of affluence this way skews the map of poorest places toward rural states (which tend to be red) and away from big cities (which tend to be blue). This undercuts the simplicity of the meme’s political message. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ed-states/ Let's summarize: 97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states (Mostly True) Nine out of the 10 poorest states are red states (Mostly True) Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes (Mostly True) True, there are variables involved, but overall the statements are mostly true. By the way, I like the last one. Republicans are always going on about welfare but the reality is, Red states are generally being subsidized by Blue states.