So I didn't say you care less about babies. You lied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I said I wonder what happened in the first 10 minutes of their date. You said Bill Clinton did something horrible and now you're admitting that you lied and it didn't happen after being called out on it. - too funny.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said Republicans, which includes me, could care less about babies.

You feeling OK? You're acting like you're auditioning for a prime time spot at MSNBC.

"Yes I said I wonder what happened in the first 10 minutes of their date"

Sorry, that's not even close to what you said. You wondered what kind of woman Melania is, for not getting up and leaving within those first 10 minutes, which necessarily means you are assuming he was a jerk. Not a bad assumption, by the way. Nor is it a bad assumption for me to think Bill was also less than a gentleman.

Quit while you're behind, man.

I guess you could look at it that way but if I meant you obviously I would have said you since I have no problem calling you out. But I was clearly referencing the Republican budgets which constantly hurt the poor and their babies. Cutting WIC and not renewing chip hurts the poor and their vulnerable babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just out of curiosity, what is your evidence that liberal budgets have done more to help the poor and their babies? Because when I look at some of the most liberal places in the nation, I'm not seeing an elimination of infant poverty. Pretty far from it.

The late great liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when he was with the Dept Of Labor, predicted that liberal welfare would destroy the black nuclear family, and that would be a Holocaust for blacks. He was right. When you pay young black girls to have babies, and you pay them more to not marry the father of that baby, nothing good happens to those babies. Shocker.

A combo of comments about the Repub budget and tax reform – some C&P and some links:
Republicans’ efforts to cut spending have focused mostly on programs for the poor, like Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income or food stamps. Trump’s budget proposal includes $2.1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Affordable Care Act subsidies, food stamps, Social Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, and cash welfare (TANF). They also are cutting SNAP (Sup. Nutrition Assist. Program), Meals on wheels,

Others:

Eliminates funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which provides after-school programs to roughly 2 million students in high-need communities. There is research showing that after-school programs improve children's academic performance, as well as their emotional and physical well-being.

Cuts to HUD to support housing: About half of HUD's funding cut would come from eliminating the Community Development Block Grant Program. CDBG was set up to help local governments provide "decent housing," a suitable living environment and economic opportunities primarily for low- and moderate-income people.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP is targeted for elimination in Trump's budget.
Trump wants to eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corporation. LSC provides grants to nonprofits nationwide that in turn provide civil legal aid to those who otherwise can't afford it. The beneficiaries of LSC funding include homeless veterans, low-income workers and victims of domestic abuse.

Remove the $250 deduction for teachers who pay for school supplies. (prob. not an issue in the richer school districts) while maintaining favorable tax treatment for golf courses and private jets. I believe student loan interest will no longer be deductible. Furthermore, there was a story of a janitor at BC who put his 5 kids thru school there and now the tax bill would make the free tuition to his kids and (grad students) taxable.

Lower Social Security payments by changing the way increases are calculated. They are now indexed to inflation through the CPI, but that will change under a new way of figuring inflation.

The Senate Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation’s poorest would be worse off, according to a report released Sunday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans are aiming to have the full Senate vote on the tax plan as early as this week, but the new CBO analysis showing large, harmful effects on the poor may complicate those plans.
by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off
On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. (In the CBO table below, negative signs mean people in those income brackets pay less in taxes).

The main reason the poor get hit so hard in the Senate GOP bill is because the poor would receive less government aid for health care. Many of the people who are likely to drop health insurance have low or moderate incomes. If they drop health insurance, they will no longer receive some tax credits and subsidies from the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the other official nonpartisan group that analyzes tax bills, put out a similar report showing how lower-income families are hurt by the loss of the health-care tax credits. But the CBO goes a step further than the JCT. The CBO also calculates what would happen to Medicaid, Medicare and the Basic Health Program if the Senate GOP plan became law. The CBO is showing even worse impacts on poor families than the JCT did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f2b81f8fe8c0

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwas.../#683a99406c1e

[QUOTE=PaulS;1132648]

No one has claimed you can "eliminate" poverty.


http://theweek.com/articles/534655/w...-pretty-simple

this guy claims it would be pretty simple
and I don't know how many organizations exist to "end poverty"...but it a lot

So when President Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, was he widely regarded by liberals as not wanting to help poor people? Or, again, is it only immoral when conservatives do it?

You do know that when Clinton "kicked" people off welfare he put in other programs to help them vs the items that I mentioned above which will be replaced by what?

you can never have enough "programs"

you should read the article I linked...that guy clearly has it figured out....you dump a ton of money in the community...give everyone a guaranteed income "a regular check from the government with no strings attached".... give everyone free or subsidized housing and other amenities including a car, a "a jobs guarantee: using federal finance"...set up accounts for them and put money in there for them and give them bonuses if they use it properly...for new arrivals...a "stocked" investment account upon birth...and viola!...no more poverty....I like it...never been tried before :doh:

Yes, and the program that he sent those people to, was called "your free ride is over, now go get a job in the private sector, which is booming thanks to the fact that I slashed taxes".

Paul, his welfare reform, helped REDUCE spending, and generate a surplus. If he merely moved those people from one public program to another, it wouldn't have saved us money.

Sorry to interrupt a good liberal rant with facts.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Paul is right, and millions of people simply moved from one federal entitlement program to another, how did it decrease spending and generate a surplus?

His welfare reform wasn't called "moving people from one federal program to another". It was, literally, called "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act".

The point was to recognize that people on welfare too long, lose the initiative to work.

And it worked. Clinton and Gingrich did an amazing job.

You said Clinton's welfare reform just switched people from one program to another. That's not remotely true. You made it up. His program said that no one could receive welfare for more than 2 consecutive years, and no more than 5 years of benefits in a lifetime, and required that recipients be looking for work. His program moved many people from welfare to the workforce. Most people consider that a good thing.

have they announced the ceremony date yet to give Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Russell Simmons, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, John Conyers, Charlie Rose...it's hard to keep up,,, and anyone else... their lifetime achievement awards?

Oh, indeed. I said that the point of the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform was to get people off federal assistance, you and Paul disagree, and I am the one in denial.

I’m a republican. Yet I can admit that Bill Clinton did some things that were extremely beneficial to the country. You say that’s devoid of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is good....


Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.

https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-...-c1ec6c91b696/