US poverty rate headed for the highest in 50+ years.

[powderman]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/22/us-poverty-on-track-to-rise-to-highest-since-160s/
 
 
More folks losing their jobs, unemployment gone, foreclosures, etc. Our preachers wife was let go yesterday after 38 years, job was outsourced. A lady I grrew up with in ILL has been let go after 27 years, more outsourcing. Neighbors daughter lost her home and was found dead Thursday, suicide suspected. Had a enough change yet?? The obamination must go. POWDERMAN. 

[R.W.Dale]

I agree the current president is pretty inept.

But blaming him for folks taking out more mortgage than they could pay for ten years ago is so intellectually dishonest it does all of us here a disservice. I have exactly ZERO sympathy or tolerance for folks "losing their homes" or what I call NOT PAYING FOR THEM. I didn't go out and spend everything I approved for when I bought my house. I HAVEN'T morgauged it to the hilt and I HAVE paid for it and could continue to do so even if I lost my job. Now for doing the right thing what kind of handouts and coddling can I get from the .gov? JACK SQUAT that's what

If you want to blame something for the constant outsourcing thank NAFTA and the "giant sucking sound"

Getting rid of Obama and replacing him with (generic white guy here) will solve exactly NONE of these long term underlying issues. But the sheeple dead cat republicrats will think it will and will proceeded to sweep them back under the rug to fester and rot. This is not an endorsement for oboy as much as its a reflection of the reality that the president doesn't run the economy like rush Limbaugh tells you guys he does

[Cabin4]

According to NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Times and the rest of the liberal media outlets, these problems with our American economy don't exsist. The real problem is Romney wont release any more tax returns.

[nw_hunter]

And it will only get worse with the next Administration.Whether it's Romney or Obama again! During the GW Bush years 5.4 million people slipped below the poverty level added to the 37 million or so.I'm sure a similar thing happened during the Clinton years.........................They all need to go!

[powderman]

rw. BO, or before obama, folks were paying their bills and working. Too many jobs are gone. Preachers wife lost her job of 38 years Fri, friend in ILL lost hers after 27 years due to outsourcing and cutbacks. YEP, we got change all right. POWDERMAN. 

[Cabin4]

And if Romney would release his tax returns, all the jobs will come back.
 
This obama is an utter American disaster. There is nothing good he can say about what he has dome to this country. He literally cannot run on any aspect of his record. Its all trash talk. I rather have a "silver spoon in his mouth multi millionare" as a president than the trash distributor we have now.

[powderman]

And if Romney would release his tax returns, all the jobs will come back.
 
This obama is an utter American disaster. There is nothing good he can say about what he has dome to this country. He literally cannot run on any aspect of his record. Its all trash talk. I rather have a "silver spoon in his mouth multi millionare" as a president than the trash distributor we have now.

 
C4. YEP. POWDERMAN. 

[R.W.Dale]

You guys actually think all these problems are automatically solved come November if Kerry manages to beat Oboy?

Sad really sad. No wonder we have a spineless flip flopping liberal on the Republican ticket. All he has to do is say he's for whatever pleases the sheep at the time

[twoshooter]

I am personally sure that Romney and Bain was far more directly responsible for sending jobs overseas than Obama is. More people are poor because rich people are richer. That is because in the new "global" economy there are not rich "Americans" or rich "foreign " persons, they are invested globally, and they are just "rich" . They know that the ultimate outcome will be a leveling of various economies around the world, the developing countries will come up, the average American will go down. The people who argue that the "pie" will get bigger, with enough for all, are either delusional or duplicitous. It may be true eventually that most will be more or less "equal" in the global economy of the future, but the overall level is in question. Until there is no longer a significant gap in production cost, the drain will continue, and that gap is NOT simply the result of our tax structure or regulation. Those with means will naturally try to protect those assets, and the most effective way to do that is to convince the general population that those of means had nothing to do with the overall situation, that it was "government", corporations, Unions, corruptions that caused it. It is just like O,J, looking for the killers.

[powderman]

You guys actually think all these problems are automatically solved come November if Kerry manages to beat Oboy?

 
rw. Didn't know kerry was running again. POWDERMAN. 

[R.W.Dale]

You guys actually think all these problems are automatically solved come November if Kerry manages to beat Oboy?

 
rw. Didn't know kerry was running again. POWDERMAN. 

 
What's the difference? 


Exactly

Dukackus>gore>Kerry>Romney

They're all very similar and they have one cruical thing in common THEY LOST

[powderman]

Dukackus>gore>Kerry>Romney

They're all very similar and they have one cruical thing in common THEY LOST

 
rw. You named 3 dem losers and Romney, but he hasn't lost yet. What has this to do with the highest poverty rate in America in 50 years?? Your foodstamp president has caused a lot of this. POWDERMAN. 

[Cabin4]

No, he is right. Romney is an idiot just like the Mcain, Kerry, etc. And, no not all our problems will be solved. But it is a step in the right direction and that is one way too look at all this. Why continue to go hard left if you can make a slight turn to the right?
 
Romney is just not as bad as obama and actually much better than obama on a very low scale. But that is the real choice come November, obama or romney. One of these guys is going to be our next president.
 
If your looking for the Utopia candidate, you better stop looking. I dont think we have had one of those yet.

[R.W.Dale]

Dukackus>gore>Kerry>Romney

They're all very similar and they have one cruical thing in common THEY LOST

 
rw. You named 3 dem losers and Romney, but he hasn't lost yet. What has this to do with the highest poverty rate in America in 50 years?? Your foodstamp president has caused a lot of this. POWDERMAN. 

He's already lost vis a vis  his nomination you simply choose to not see that.

Romney lost to McCain four years ago. Now ask yourself this two part question. If Romney couldn't beat McCain who did McCain lose to and how many Obama supporters do you think have decided to jump ship?

A vote for Romney in the primary was a vote for Obama's reelection

[magooch]

I agree that Obama can't be blamed for all of America's problems, but he did say that he would lower the sea level and fix everything.  He spent most of his time on vacations and playing golf while he allowed Harry Reid to halt any attempt to get things back on track. 
 
Obama failed to secure our borders as have so many administrations, but in Obama's time it has become crucial due to our faltering economy, which he hasn't done anything about either.  This country cannot support our own legitimate population--let alone 20 million illegals. 
 
Trying to blame the wealthy for the problems of the masses is ridiculous.  So-called outsourcing is nothing new and it didn't start with NAFTA.  As a matter of fact, the economy flourished after NAFTA. 
 
The economy is always just one election away from a plunge and it started that plunge when the Dumycrats got total control of Congress in 2007.  Add a communist know nothing organizer to the mix, who campaigns for President on the message that we are in the worst economy ever and you've got the right formula for driving the whole works sideways.  Elect the communist and give him two years with a Dumycrat spendthrift Congress and you see what it got us.  The only thing left is to blame George Bush for the mess and that fixes everything.

[Cabin4]

Regan lost his first bid for the nomination but won the second time. So that argument makes no sense.
 
Times change, so do the issues and that means there is a opportunity for a new winner. To say Romney cant win because he lost to McCain is just plain nonesense.

[R.W.Dale]

Regan lost his first bid for the nomination but won the second time. So that argument makes no sense.
 
Times change, so do the issues and that means there is a opportunity for a new winner. To say Romney cant win because he lost to McCain is just plain nonesense.

I hate to break it to ya but Romney is no Regan

[Cabin4]

Your right. So is your assertion that you cant win because you previously lost. So this entire discussion about winning and losing is nothing more than a red herring discussion. It actually has no basis in mathematical or historical fact. If Romney gets more votes, he will win. And that is all there is too it. And with the economy and job situation as bad as it is and with a candidate that can't run on his record of accomplishments, you have a formula where any opponent can possibly win.

[R.W.Dale]

Your right. So is your assertion that you cant win because you previously lost. So this entire discussion about winning and losing is nothing more than a red herring discussion. It actually has no basis in mathematical or historical fact. If Romney gets more votes, he will win. And that is all there is too it. And with the economy and job situation as bad as it is and with a candidate that can't run on his record of accomplishments, you have a formula where any opponent can possibly win.

As wildly unpopular as Obama is right now he still polls within one point AHEAD of Romney.

Think about what that says for Romneys appeal! Any other candidate should be ten points plus ahead of this failing administration right now.

Combine this with the incumbent advantage and the absolute massive lead Obama has in campaign funds and YES its not a stretch to see this election is a forgone conclusion.

As to who gets more votes wins this is also incorrect and ignores our electoral college. Which looks even WORSE for Romney than the straight up polling does.

Its not like Romney can run on his record either! Gun bans, high taxes and Romney care?

[magooch]

Don't forget either that the Dumycrats know every trick in the book for rigging elections and Holder is making sure those tricks are not hampered by new laws to prevent voter fraud.

[Cabin4]

Obviously obama's policies have not brought a remedy to this trend and in fact, under his policies, it has gotten worse. It will continue to get worse with his policies because when your policies kill the economy and jobs, only the working class suffer. Wealthy people don't really lose wealth because the economy goes south or jobs disappear. They allready have accumulated wealth and don't "need" a job. So the entire obamanomics approach is creating a larger under class of dependant people. The things those people really need (a job, a house with equity, etc) are not being met. Exactly what he really wants. This is no mistake. Obamanomics is about taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor in the form of all kinds of free givaways. That is priority #1 for obama, all other factors are incendentals. A great mistake for America, a bull's for obama.

[powderman]

Don't forget either that the Dumycrats know every trick in the book for rigging elections and Holder is making sure those tricks are not hampered by new laws to prevent voter fraud.

 
YEP, they wrote the book. POWDERMAN. 

[Gary G]

US poverty rate headed for the highest in 50+ years. Why?

At the beginning of the 19th century, Europe was economically ahead of America. Some years later America surpassed Europe. Why? We were more free with less government.

In the 20th century, Hong Kong and Haiti, both island nations were about the same except Hong Kong was a rock having no natural resources. Today one is among the richest nations in the world and the other is among the poorest. Why? More freedom, less government.

It is not a republican/democrat thing. It is a government thing. As long as the government continues to become more intrusive in our lives (tax and regulate) the standard of living will decline and the unemployment rate will continue to rise. It is not in the interest of the politicians to give up any of their power. The people won't figure any of this out going to public schools and watching television, (or listening to democrats/republicans), and therefore will never learn although there have been many books written on the subject. Ignorance is not bliss.

[Cabin4]

How does Obama economic policy different from Bush or GOP policy??.....I see it has pretty much the same. One is a Wall St Libber the other is a Wall St Conservative.....but both feed octopussy. Both have created an enviornmnet where wealth is better off off-shoring jobs, or sitting on financial investments which further ensure job loss.. To bring back jobs simply create an environmnet that behooves real production here, prosecutes white collar criminals/banksters (eg Libor crimes), an regulates criminal enterprises and defrocks monopolies..to break up the logjam of capital and spread it around.  This is not done by cutting taxes or deregulating monopolies _ _ that's exactly what they want and is what they've been getting for 40  years now!! And it gets worse an worse....add in the perpetual intervention wars and you got a recipe for real economic disater....or outbreak of global ww3.
.
..TM7

Did I say Bush? NO. But since you mention it, based on your own analysis, you must agree at minimum his inability to make any resonable change in itself is a huge problem that has allowed the situation to deteriorate.... So comparing him to being the same/similar to Bush is just confirmation that he in fact, has not brought a solution. If he has not brought a solution, then he is a failure. Obama was elected to make a "Change" and therefor, based on his own definition, he is a failure.
 
He does not deserve a second chance to continue his policies or Bushes or any other former presidents policies. Correct?

[Cuts Crooked]

Obama was elected to make a "Change" and therefor, based on his own definition, he is a failure.
 

Au contraire my friend! He HAS made change......for the worse, but he did make change!

[Cabin4]

Obama was elected to make a "Change" and therefor, based on his own definition, he is a failure.
 

Au contraire my friend! He HAS made change......for the worse, but he did make change!

Well, I guess reading the rest of my post would address that point well enough. But, in any case we would assume that the people that voted for obama voted for him assuming a "change" for the better, whatever or however each one of them define that. So based on that self defined standard, I think its safe to assume many will feel he failed them.

[Gary G]

GaryG...
 
..the government exist to prevent crime and injustice, for one thing, or it once did. I don't know about LewRockwell.com but virtually all economic pundits universally agree that the current economic recession/depression was caused by crime, illogical/illegal financial paper, fraud, governmnet largess on behalf of elites, and a lack of proper regulations or regulators doing their job...this is true from Madoff on down the line, and is still going on....The real governmnet apparently is Goldman-Sachs...The criminals that caused the economic depression are still in the candy store running things.  For them there has been no governmnet intrusion_ _just governmnet cooperation!!. Fact is we Citizens need alot less governmnet intrusion and more freedom, while those that ran away with the picnic basket need alot more. The last 40-50 years has seen so little gov intrusion in the elite wealth class and their agendi that they have been enabled to acrew tremendous wealth, and  not even by producing here on these shores; while 50 million Americans idle by in poverty or loosing thier homes by predatory usury...Now Citizens United bequeathes the elite class with unparalleled political buying power never heard of before in this Country.  What's wrong with this picture? And how would further deregulation and skewed justice reverse this trend going on for 40+ years??
 
.
.
..TM7

[the government exist to prevent crime and injustice, for one thing, or it once did] Yep, past tense,lol.

TM, on the cause, I guess all Austrian economists predicted 2008 in advance. The Keynesians didn't have a clue. I know, listening to the Austrians saved me a bunch of money. Now, if they had the ability to predict it, they would know the cause and it was not crime. Do a google of the Austrian Business Cycle and you too will know how they predicted it.

On regulation:
a competitive market is tough on business yet it provides the most and best products for the consumer which encourages a growing economy. naturally, businesses don't like the competition. One way of combating that is to get the government to pass regulation. Large businesses lobby for these regulations that is why you have so much regulation. Often, they are the ones to write them. It limits competition from smaller businesses, often keeping them from competing at all. It is also a hidden cost on the products that we buy and a drag on the economy. The regulators are also bought. Seldom to they catch anything until after the fact.

In a free market, price is the best regulator. A company is forced to produce the best product at a price that people are willing to pay. Otherwise, someone will enter the market and undercut them. Customers are most important and so company reputation is a must. A cheater, when found out, is out of business. Monopolies can only be created with the help of laws.