Originally Posted by bluedog

Why do you seem unconcerned about the 10 trillion dollars wasted on the war on poverty by bringing down the poverty level from 10.5% to just 10% in 40 plus years. As far as the 2 billion spent on national security, the primary job of the Federal Government is that of national security, now you bitch because the Feds are doing their primary duty and not spending as much on socializing the masses? Sounds communist to me. If we don't put security first, just what is left to socialize? You think the republicans are conservatives......you quit spending the money on defense and you can start imagining how our women will look in burkas.....a ban on drink....porn(whores would be stoned instead of paid 50 bucks a throw)....and compulsory payer would be the message of the day.....sure spend all our resources on socialism and become like France...depending upon their neighbors to protect them, with the exception that the most powerful neighbor would be the ultra conservative Muslims. Sure lets bitch and complain about a few buck some crack heads don't get to waste. BD

Originally Posted by bluedog

Why do you seem unconcerned about the 10 trillion dollars wasted on the war on poverty by bringing down the poverty level from 10.5% to just 10% in 40 plus years.

Originally Posted by rdnor

A whopping .5% in 40 years ? This is the government here right . They should not show a net gain at all , right ? Defense is something that IF we stop spending on it WILL come round and slap us hard , like the loss of a city . These " peaceniks" are just chicken hearted fools . I have spoken and that is that . Someone has sent some real sickening libs over here the last couple of weeks and they are trying to wear us down . Even though I am on chemo , I will fight till the last drop drips from my veins . Bring it on punks !

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

rdnor,

Just for future reference, I would be a little suspect of any numbers presented by BD....I recommend doing the research yourself....if you want the correct facts that is.

Originally Posted by bluedog

And you are offering the same old lying stats that is at best antiquated and the most a source of manipulated projections used to distort the facts that the methodology used by the government is in fact "flawed".....please present a "current" chart, one that does not "incorporate" the use of government standards which states that all living at or about 200% "above" the poverty level shall be considered impoverished. BD

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

How about you present a "current chart", BD?

Originally Posted by bluedog

The "true" numbers....according to wikipedia are for the year 1966 10.5% living at or under the actual poverty level....and most recent finding suggests a drop of only .5%....when considering actual poverty levels. BD

Originally Posted by bluedog

Such information and sources were already confirmed on a previous thread and I would find it only playing your "game" of going in circles....or is your memory really that "flawed"? Its only been a few weeks and I am sure if "YOU" really want to get to the "truth" a man such as you, with "all" your self professed knowledge would have no problem in finding and reading such. BD