Soopermexican:
The Obama administration is doing everything it can in order to pivot away from the failings of Obamacare and towards relieving America of the nefarious affliction of “income inequality.”
If Obama paid more attention to studies coming out of his alma mater Harvard, he might learn that there’s another predictor of social immobility that’s much more devastating than whether some CEO somewhere makes more money than a child’s parent.
From the Washington Examiner:
A new study from Harvard University on the ability of low-income children to achieve social mobility found that the largest hindrance to moving up the income ladder is being raised by a single parent.
“The strongest and most robust predictor [of social mobility] is the fraction of children with single parents,” the study said.
You mean that Obama’s celebrated “Life of Julia” is actually more likely to produce a poverty-stricken child than the terrible evil of “income inequality”?
And while I hate to say that Hillary Clinton might have been right about saying, “it takes a village to raise a child,” the Harvard study confirms this axiom in a way she wouldn’t approve of:
That’s your justification for not helping the poor? Lame.`
@This one: No, what this says is that handing them money and patting yourself on the back is not helping them. If they don’t take personal responsibility for their lives, there is very little that can be done to help them achieve the goals of improving their social and economic situations.
What handing money over to them regardless of how they comport their lives and what effort they put forth towards bettering themselves only accomplishes one thing; it makes them dependent upon the government hand-out. This seems to be what the left strives to accomplish.
Another thing holding kids back is our education system. From our incompetent public school systems that have resulted in a continual degradation of the capabilities of those students who graduate. To the arrogant leftists who are in near complete control of our higher learning establishments, that have continually raised the cost of a collage education out of reach of many in the middle and lower class. These greedy education moguls then claim that the problem is that there is not sufficient financial aid or funding for their overpriced and often politically biased curriculum.
If our children are not smart enough to compete, it is the dumbing down of our pathetic education system that is to blame.
Obama has been stung by using his faulty ”income inequality” line which is so easily repudiated.
For the bottom income group, there is an average of 0.42 earners per household, with 68.2 percent of householders not working at all, as opposed to 1.97 earners per household and only 13.3 percent not working for the highest income group.
If merely INCOME were equalized, the poorest would still have between 1/4 and none of what the two-full-time worker households had!
So, Obama pivots again!
He will not talk about ”income inequality,” anymore.
Obama will be talking about ”ladders of opportunity.”
All of the above, ”inequality,” or ”ladders” is just Obama’s latest DIVERSION from his failed health care overhaul.
According to Obama Los Angeles is a community in this country where no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead!
Los Angeles?!?!
What about Detroit?
Nope.
Detroit is left out, as is Chicago.
Obama is full of expensive unsustainable ideas for helping people temporarily cope with poverty (i.e., the welfare state), but he’s intellectually bankrupt when it comes to actually creating opportunities for people to lift themselves out of that poverty.
So, this I gotta hear in his speech.
Oh, and that’s just his latest speech.
He’s planning a whole bunch of speeches.
See: http://washingtonexaminer.com/after-tuesday-speech-obama-to-take-year-of-action-theme-on-the-road/article/2542870
The left, as in #1 always has a “for shame” comment like this…trying to lay on the guilt regarding ‘the poor’. For years and generations there has been so much fraud without much checks and balances….and today?… the so called ‘poor’ can be anyone.
There are not very many conservatives lining up for a Government handout…so who are the people who are MOST GUILTY of not helping the poor by taking ADVANTAGE of a system that purposely has no checks and balances??? I will give “the one” one guess who… and once again it is not the people ‘who did NOT vote for Obama’ …. The guilt trip the liberals try to lay on people is really whats lame… and I tend to be suspicious of liberal rhetoric like this…
also what is lame is a liberal created system which “allows fraud” to perpetuate…not only at the bottom but also at the top…
No one minds helping the truly poor…. not even those evil republicans and conservatives. However, these days the truly poor are being short changed by a Liberal created system. Now everyone, including illegals here in the US are taking money away from the truly poor “citizens” of this country… United States “citizens” are now being treated as second class citizens to all the illegals…while our government bends over backward for them for votes…
Liberals systems are so ass backwards…their ideology and policies in the long run actually help no one… the problems multiply like cancer cells….there is help, but the help is rejected by the liberal left and the cancer turns into a full blown malignancy that creeps from generation to generation…
A family is not a village. It doesn’t prove anything right that Hillary said.
@This one: Had the unfortunate occasion today to personally witness a young man raised by a single parent be sentenced to life in prison. He didn’t have a chance with the family situation he had.
Too true, and all the rest is also a great comment.
Guilt tripping the ”Right,” is only going to work IF the ”Left ,” practice what they preach.
The Obama’s are known for their blatant hypocrisy in many regards.
(Eating cheeseburgers, fries and shakes while starving high schoolers, is just one example.)
Compare and contrast Michelle Obama’s 50th b-day party with Laura Bush’s 60th…..
Michelle’s had 500 guests, including Gladys Knight, Jennifer Hudson, Mary J. Blige, Michael Jordan, Stevie Wonder, Samuel L. Jackson, Ashley Judd, and, Beyoncé and Jay-Z.
Also there: Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Susan Rice, Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius.
They danced until 3 a.m., at least, and drank champagne, wine, beer, and hard liquor.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/what-wasnt-allowed-at-michelle-obamas-top-secret-glitzy-birthday-bash/
Now, Laura Bush:
At their ranch the Bush’s hosted friends including Lois and Roland Betts, Regan and Billy Gammon, Debbie and Jim Francis and Nancy and Mike Weiss for a dinner of enchiladas, tamales, guacamole, rice and beans and birthday cake.
Laura got a triple strand amber-colored necklace as a gift from her husband, the president.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1554720,00.html
HMMMM…. Looks like you have to manually add that last part of the above link, I have no idea why.
So, of course, the Obama’s love ”the poor,” while the Bush’s hate them.
Anyone can tell this just by watching them.
Which was why Michelle’s party was top secret with no cell phones or cameras allowed.
obama’s idea of a “single parent” is the U. S. government.
Ditto
.
An educated public is a self-sufficient public that can take care of themselves, and neither the democrats or republicans want that.
Why are so many colleges and universities getting federal money when they have billions of dollars in endowments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
@Smorgasbord:
I would argue that while Establishment and Progressive Democrats and Republicans might want to keep the peasants dumbed down, it would be incorrect to say that ALL Dems and Reps want an inadequate education system.
Democrats are quick to point to the cost of fuel, and claim that it is all due to greedy oil companies, yet the inflation of gasoline in the last 30 years pales in comparison with the greed that has resulted in much higher inflation among our institutes of education over the same three decades.
@Ditto: #10
I should have said that neither the democratic party nor the republican party want an educated public. Both parties have had the full congress and the white house and never fixed much of anything. That is the main reason I don’t belong to either, and won’t donate to either one. I will donate directly to a candidate from now on.
As I have mentioned different times, the oil companies run on a much lower profit margin than most other businesses, even the ones run by liberals who complain about the oil company profits. The propaganda media also likes to lump in all of the oil company businesses. Like all large conglomerates, they own many businesses. Some don’t have anything to do with oil, but the propaganda media likes to lump them all together.
@Nanny G-#8 – ty – Yes, Nanny G…Many DO notice the ‘lavish Obama’s’ and their blatant hypocrisy.
The reason “no cell phones” or social media? – Is, as we all have know, because the Obama’s know they are blatant hypocrites…and to add that line in the story – “they might have wanted privacy” is just plain b/s…and the Obama’s ?? Well, they knew full well IF Moochell’s “lavish” B-Day Party was splattered all over social media…A LOT of eyebrows would go up once Barry started his new divide and conquer rhetoric “income inequality” …being sneaky and non-transparent… now THAT is is what is Lame and particularly shameful.
But, then the Obama’s have their media and sheeples to ‘make excuses for them’ that is what liberals are good at. Making excuses for just about everything…and playing the blame game…
@This one: speaking of lame did you read the article?