ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Obama Causes Poverty Increases

"The nation's poverty rate jumped to 14.3% in 2009, its highest level since 1994, and 43.6 million Americans in need is the highest number in 51 years of record-keeping, the government said Thursday." Source CNN. How is Obama doing a good job for the American people by harming the poorest in our society?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Financial Bible Quiz
 ---Alan on 9/16/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

\\Ronald Reagan came up with "No Fault" divorce for the same reason King Henry ??? created the Church Of England. \\

Ronald Regan had no political power and had no political office at the time he divorced his first wife and no-fault divorce laws were adopted by the states--NOT by the federal government.
---Cluny on 10/24/10

Good morning! What does a true Christian do everyday all the day long? Follows her leader. God is a GREAT LEADER. He is not a wicked leader. He's a good leader. Holy, righteous, leader. GOD! We don't follow man. We follow our Savior. Leader above all leaders. King above all kings, yes He is. Jesus Christ.
---catherine on 10/25/10

I did not remember that Reagan was responsible for "no fault" divorce. A lot of people at the time felt "no fault" was the way to go, since "fault" in marriage is often so difficult (and expensive) to prove legally.
---Donna66 on 10/24/10

Ronald Reagan came up with "No Fault" divorce for the same reason King Henry ??? created the Church Of England. They both wanted to divorce & remarry. I don't know the circumstances of their marriages. Maybe they had a Biblical reason to divorce.

I think that "No Fault" divorce has had "questionable" results in the USA. Divorce cases, mine included, are messier than ever to settle.
---Augie on 10/24/10

Augie--Right you are. Divorce creates a great deal of poverty.
I did not remember that Reagan was responsible for "no fault" divorce. A lot of people at the time felt "no fault" was the way to go, since "fault" in marriage is often so difficult (and expensive) to prove legally...and nobody can be "forced" into living as a married person, anyway.
---Donna66 on 10/24/10

the headline news is "democrats knowing they are in trouble are reaching out to female voters" . Now I'm wondering with all the catering to the muslims the liberals are doing, not wanting to offend them, who by the way treats women worse than donkeys, what are the dems saying to women to get their vote? Such hypocrisy.
---wayne on 10/23/10

The "War on Poverty" has been lost as surely as the "War on Drugs"...and they were lost before Obama. Obama's economic policies, however, have prolonged unemployment... and thus poverty.
---Donna66 on 10/12/10

This is pretty much true.

Another cause for "poverty" is divorce. My ex-wife cleaned me out. A lot of other divorced men can tell you similar stories.

Divorce also impacts mothers and their children too. Often, they are plunged into "poverty". And the "poverty cycle" is difficult to break.

I know that I probaly shouldn't think this way, but I "despise" Ronald Reagan because of his "no fault" divorce legislation in the 1970's.
---Augie on 10/13/10

The "War on Poverty" has been lost as surely as the "War on Drugs"...and they were lost before Obama. Obama's economic policies, however, have prolonged unemployment... and thus poverty. He and his advisors, having no experience in business, (never having to invest his own money in inventory nor meet payroll for employees, for example) have no clue how to stimulate business. They fail to understand that businesses in the private sector are the engines of our economy. The government, and "government jobs" provide employment for some, but require taxpayer money to operate.
---Donna66 on 10/12/10

The bible says the poor will always be with us because of sin, half the food produced in the world is wasted and there has never been more support in terms of money available for the poor than is available now.
A good deal of welfare money available is wasted, abused or unaccounted for.

The suggestion that ANY U.S. president is responsible for growing numbers of poor is absurd.
---larry on 10/11/10

\\God is not pleased with our choice of elections, not just Obama.\\

The Bible says that the heart of a king is in the hand of God. That means that nothing will stop His purposes, and His will is fulfilled, regardless of who is wielding secular power.

\\ My God is just not happy. \\

You've made it clear many times that your god is not the God of the Bible.

\\Too many sinners a running things.\\

Which of us is NOT a sinner--including you, catherine?
---Cluny on 10/11/10

God is not pleased with our choice of elections, not just Obama. My God is just not happy. If Father isn't happy, no one is going to be happy. Things are getting worse. How come? Because, my God is not happy. Too many sinners a running things. We Neeeeeeeeeeeeed God. Get off your behinds, and do something. If God isn't invited in politics then the devil is. Hallelujah.
---catherine on 10/11/10

President Obama is NOT directly responsible!

Back in the 1960's, Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) enacted his Great Society programs. This included amendments to the Social Security System and the War on Poverty legislation. The results have been mixed.

Medicare and Medicaid DID help the poor and the retired. However, many of the other programs "encouraged" more of what the 1960's "sex revolution" brought on. Future generations picked up on that and continued it all. A great example is "having children outside of marriage".

Today, over 40% of the children in the USA are born out-of-wedlock. The cycle of poverty often begins at this point.

A little before President Obama got into office?
---Augie on 10/10/10

Donna66, I agree that there are many factors involved, too many for a 125 word limit.
Another revealing chart that I have researched before is who controls the House, Senate, along with the President in comparison to these figures.
It is more revealing when one can get quarterly information and be able to see the overlaps when seats switch party control.
What I find of major interest is the drastic difference in figures with 1 year of Obama compared with any 2 years of his predecessors, even if you check back to WW2 era when the debt was seeming outrageous compared to average income.
As I said before, 125 words is not enough, but just a sample.
---micha9344 on 9/24/10

Mike-- The "Bush" tax cuts were enacted in 2003. The chart shows the difference in % of unemployment between 2002 and 2004. Looks to me like there was an obvious change there. In 2006-2008 we had a Democratic congress, but the tax cuts remained. Just shows there are many factors... individual income tax is only one, that influences employment.
---Donna66 on 9/23/10

As christians, we are only to be aware of events happening in the world and not get involved. Christian who become politically involved do so to change the way things are, to make the world a little better. But you cannot change what is to come - the end time prophesies. Prophesy is being fullfilled, even now, and you cannot change it.

But who do we really blame? Everyone AND the government.
---Steveng on 9/23/10

02___6.20___+.57____8.4___+47.4__W Bush
04___7.35__+1.15____8.1_____-3.6__W Bush
06___8.45__+1.10____7.0____-14.6__W Bush
08___9.99__+1.54____8.9___+27.1__W Bush
---micha9344 on 9/23/10


bush employment increased not decreased.

didn't bush ask for $700 billion bailout in 2008? then the unemployment increased.
his tax cuts for the rich did not help. if the wealthy buy a 500 lexus costing $50,000 or if a private jet it did not help the economy or trickled down like what bush says. that is why local gov'ts are in deficit bec. of the tax cuts.
---mike on 9/23/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

What you say is true. But we ALREADY HAVE these tax "cuts"! The question is whether or not to KEEP them (for upper tax brackets).
It may be reassuring, but it's is certainly no great incentive, to know that the government will continue to let people keep that portion of their own money. With an administration that is determined to raise taxes, most people know that keeping these tax "cuts" means only that a new or increased tax will occur elsewhere.
---Donna66 on 9/22/10

Donna66: "Even if Congress decides to keep ALL Bush tax cuts, It won't help the's no change from what we have now."

I disagree. Businesses, and the economy in general, respond to the perceived future environment. That is, if incentives for productivity (profits) are seen for the future, investment and job growth will ensue. Thus, the economy will begin to respond positively to just the announcement of future lower taxes (incentives), but will respond negatively to announcement of increased taxes and government debt (disincentives). That's why we're in the mess we have now - a disincentive administration.
---jerry6593 on 9/22/10

Even if Congress decides to keep ALL Bush tax cuts, It won't help the's no change from what we have now. The tax cuts did stimulate business as would be expected, when Bush enacted them.

But now have we an outspokenly anti-business president. He mocks business people at every opportunity and, without warning, creates new regulations for them. He takes over private businesses (such as GM) and puts others out of business at a whim (look at all the abandoned car dealerships...many of them family owned...neccesitated by "cash for clunkers").
Mark my words...You will see little or no economic growth as long as Obama is president.
---Donna66 on 9/21/10

Larry. I believe you are totally wrong in thinking that the wealthy "simply and wisely" put away any savings. Wealthy people INVEST money to make MORE Money. (that's how they get "wealthy" in the first place) The only place to do this is American industry...though more Americans are now investing abroad.
The ONLY way to become wealthy is to own a business or invest in one. In either case more jobs are created and the standard of living improves overall.
---Donna66 on 9/21/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

Alan and NurseRobert are both right. Lower taxes on the wealthy don't spur much job growth or economic activity because they simply and wisely put away any savings AS savings. Over time however they will spend more by upgrading the yacht, etc.
However the middle class taxpayer is much more likely to buy a new truck or flat screen supporting Best Buy and giving the economy an immediate growth spurt.
Lower taxes on the weathly aren't good because they spur economic growth, lower taxes on the wealthy are good because high tax rates are ornerous for everyone.
Its not a sin to be wealthy, its just specious to suggest lowering the rate on the top 2% would help us now.
What we need is a biblical year of Jubilee.
---larry on 9/20/10

Alan, these are among the 50% of voters who don't pay any federal income tax so its not tax policy, at least not directly.

First he was a Matthew 5 social gospel poor-biased socialist, now he's a secret Wall Street Goon out to pull what is remaining of a rug from under the poor?

Can't be both bro?

Its not Bush or Obama who passed a $110 million dollar stimulus measure for one district in California for 55 jobs. It was a single Democratic congressmember.

We need to give Bush and Obama a break and get our facts straight if we want to glorify the Lord by throwing mud.

Hint: our discussions are much more fruitful when we understand the three branches of government.
---larry on 9/20/10

Ironic! i operate two food pantry's one is private funded,the other is state funded,
since Obama has been in office the private funded pantry is near empty,however the state funded pantry has items in it i had never seen before,true i have been experiencing increase of clients,however i have received increase of product also :)
---kevin on 9/20/10

Alan Part I.

many of the wealthiest tax filers report some type of non-wage income,i.e income from a sole proprietorship, a partnership or an S corporation. The Treasury Department estimated that 75 percent of tax payers in the top bracket reported this type of income. Does this make them "small business" owners?

This kind of income could be reported from anyone who earned money from a source other than a regular job, such as consulting or public speaking. It could also be reported by those who make most of their income from partnerships, such as law firms and medical practices. And it could include investors who have little involvement in the day-to-day operations of a company.
---NurseRobert on 9/18/10

Send a Free Entertainment Tract

Alan PT II..

If you are a small business owner you would have to be a whiz running a very profitable small business to get hit with a tax increase under the plan Obama supports. You would have to report total income of more than $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples) after all your business expenses were deducted.

The Tax Policy Center analyzed all taxpayers, of any income level, who report these types of business income. They found only about 2 percent of them would see tax increases. So the vast majority of possible small business owners would not see a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts expire for those in the top incomes.
---NurseRobert on 9/18/10

Before President Obama was elected, didn't the U.S. already have a number of companies setting up employment in other countries, resulting in many people losing jobs and getting payed less? This started before President Obama was in office. The Constitution guarantees the "right" of "freedom of enterprise", to operate how companies like in order to make a legal profit. And people buy the products of ones who have sent jobs overseas. So, why aren't we talking about how the voters have helped support companies who have sold out American workers? Ones voted for him plus support those companies. Let the one without sin cast the first stone? But why shouldn't our neighbor be loved by getting some of what Americans have had?
---Bill_bila5659 on 9/17/10

He's not - which is why we need to vote him out of office when his term is up and most of the Democrats Nov.
---wivv on 9/16/10

Economics 101 states that lower taxes increases overall economic activity. Again as previously pointed out a large corporation CEO is not the same thing as the local CEO of a small business of 50 people or less. Individual taxes don't hurt the corporations, but instead damage the small business owner who in turn will hire less people. I don't know what else to tell you other than that's how economics works. Obama is proposing to tax the rich business owner who has the small business. Obama is not proposing to increase taxes on the corporations. Corporations and people are not the same.
---Alan on 9/16/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

Alan, you are equating less taxes with more jobs. You are assuming that if taxes are lowered, these "rich people" will hire more workers. There are no stats that are showing that. Indeed, CEOs are making more money now than ever, but they are still NOT developing more jobs..instead the inverse is occurring.
---NurseRobert on 9/16/10

it isn't the presidents fault. it is the government and society. Now I know how hard it is to find a job, but there are the minority people out there that are lazy & donot want to work & those are the ones that hurt us ..but everything isn't the presidents fault. we have to take care of our own actions too.
---candice on 9/16/10

Sounds like we are in agreement. However, Obama is proposing to increase taxes on the rich not the large corporations. At the same time if he taxes the large corporations too much, more of their jobs will go overseas as the CEOs attempt to please the stockholders with a reasonable profit. The USA is in a terrible financial condition and increasing taxes at the wrong time is exactly what deepened the Great Depression.
---Alan on 9/16/10

I am referring to the rich stockholders of the corporations that are sending our jobs overseas. What we are experiencing now is a ripple effect from the outsourcing that began during the Bush years.
---Trish9863 on 9/16/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

Trish you are confusing the rich with large corporations. Large corporations have sent jobs overseas not your small local business owner who has less than 50 employees. Employment increased during the Bush years not decreased, just the opposite of what is happening now.
---Alan on 9/16/10

The rich are proving plenty of jobs for people living in India, China and other foreign countries where the labor is cheaper. Giving the rich a tax break has not provided jobs since the original tax cuts. Instead unemployment has gone up.
---Trish9863 on 9/16/10

I agree with you Trish that is a fair comment. My concern is that things are going to get even worse for the poor once Obama increases taxes on the rich whom create the jobs for the poor. Obama doesn't seem to understand basic economic principles that you don't tax during economic downturns. At least wait until the economy turns around before increasing taxes. Otherwise, the poor get clobbered.
---Alan on 9/16/10

Alan: The poverty rate did not happen overnight. Businesses outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, and all that began years ago, and people losing their jobs having their unemployment run out with no jobs to replace their employment began prior to Obama's election. It is going to take time to fix the problem, and Obama is not the only one working on it. Congress is also responsible for working to fix it.
---Trish9863 on 9/16/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.