Obama: "Wealthy" ignore poverty, send kid to private schools

[Sonny Clark]

Remind us, Ears, where do your daughters attend school? There are many reasons our children attend private schools and "ignoring" poverty isn't one of them. This asshole is clueless

OBAMA: WEALTHY IGNORE POVERTY BY SENDING KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS

During a conversation about poverty, President Obama said he was concerned that more wealthy people were separated from poverty because they chose to frequent private institutions instead of public ones.

“Part of what’s happened is, is that elites in a very mobile, globalized world are able to live together, away from folks who are not as wealthy, and so they feel less of a commitment to making those investments,” he explained during a panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University today.

Obama criticized the free-market system in America for allowing higher concentrations of wealth to exist among the rich while the bottom percentage was being left behind and receiving a smaller portion of that wealth.

“Those who are doing better and better, more skilled, more educated, – luckier – having greater advantages are withdrawing from the commons,” he said. “Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.”

Obama Wealthy Ignore Poverty By Sending Kids To Private Schools - Breitbart

Obama is an anti-America hypocrite. WHAT? Seriously? Yes, he is. Here's why I say that. He himself ignores poverty, in many ways. He is always asking for more money to send to foreign governments and foreign causes, but rarely, if ever, does he ask for money to lift the poor, make education cheaper and affordable, get children and families off the streets and into housing, and encourage businesses and corporations to reestablish the industrial sector in order to provide self-supporting living wage opportunities that cover all education and skill levels. Yet, he condones and encourages unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies that take jobs out of this country, thus creating more poverty.

If Mr. Obama was really concerned about poverty in America, he's encourage and fund American industrial development. He'd concentrate on putting America back to work, producing what America uses and consumes. But, instead, he is content with strengthening foreign economies at the expense of our own economic well-being. In other words, Mr. Obama is a liar and an anti-America "hot air spewing political mouth" in its worst form. If he would stop pissing away money outside of our borders, stop funding the care and support of illegal immigrants, and start investing in America, American industries, American communities, America's future, and lift he poor by encouraging business and corporate America to reestablish a strong industrial base, thus providing an adequate number of self-supporting living wage opportunities that cover all education and skill levels, then he'd be doing his job as president.

The amount of government waste of tax dollars could easily fund projects to lift the poor and less fortunate. Does Mr. Obama every talk about the astronomical amount of wasteful spending by the government? Does he ever talk about how foreign trade creates unemployment and poverty? Does he ever talk about shaming corporate America for its off-shore job out-sourcing, the importing of labor, and the hiring of illegal immigrants? Does he ever go into poverty areas and explain why they're poor and unemployed? Does he ever explain to the poor why he sends tax dollars to foreign governments instead of spending the money in their neighborhoods and communities?

When Mr. Obama speaks, always read between the lines. He's as anti-America as anyone that has ever sat in the oval office.

 

[Misty]

It seems he sends his kids to private school but doesn't ignore poverty. It's the "ignore poverty" part that is the bad thing here.

He enables poverty.

 

[Katzndogz]

Did he really say that people go to a private club rather than a public park? Has he been to a public park? Try Central Park.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, like I would send my son to an inner-city high school where he's far more likely to get killed than get an education. Even guilt-ridden white liberals draw the line there.

Or molested by a teacher, it's becoming rampant

Or a priest.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yeah, like I would send my son to an inner-city high school where he's far more likely to get killed than get an education. Even guilt-ridden white liberals draw the line there.

Or molested by a teacher, it's becoming rampant

Or a priest.

True. The Church should have purged itself of gays as soon as they realized it had the problem.

 

[BlueGin]

It's more division from a clueless jackass

The only division here is the giant hole where the middle class used to be, not that you give a shit about that when there are billionaires asses to be kissed.

Middle class voted themselves into oblivion, fuck 'em.

Same thing I tell the people in healthcare that voted for Obama and that are currently losing their jobs to outsourcing. You get what you pay for

 

[mudwhistle]

It seems he sends his kids to private school but doesn't ignore poverty. It's the "ignore poverty" part that is the bad thing here.

Yeah....he spends a lot of time thinking about poverty while he's lining up his next putt.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama talking about poverty does not compute

-Geaux

He's not afraid of sounding like a hypocrite. That's for sure.

 

[BlueGin]

The poverty situation is like mentioned in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

"...And this of course made lots of people very rich. But this was normal and nothing to be ashamed of because no one was really poor. At least, no one worth speaking of."

The poor aren't worth speaking of, have no lobbyists, and the only time we hear about them are when some millionaire looking to get something brings them up. But in so doing only looks like Marie Antoinette in a $10,000 ball gown bemoaning the poor starving children from the receiving line at a $1000 a plate political dinner.

You'er fucking kidding,r ight? The poor get shoved down our throats by every two bit left wing commie asshole running for office who panders to votes by appealing to them.

I wonder how many college educations one of Obama's vacations could provide for "the poor"?

Or care packages of food and clothes for the needy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yeah, like I would send my son to an inner-city high school where he's far more likely to get killed than get an education. Even guilt-ridden white liberals draw the line there.

Or molested by a teacher, it's becoming rampant

Or a priest.

Yeah.....I hate those homos......rotten bastards.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hard to take multi-millionaires seriously when they try talking about poverty.

Why? do you laugh at a fat person who cares about starving people? Environmentalists for not riding a bike?

Oh sorry, this isnt about them being rich, poor or bike riders. this is about you finding an excuse to not care about something you already dont care about.

Or you're waiting on that faithful day when a poor homeless person will be given the national stage and a microphone lol

 

[Annie]

It seems he sends his kids to private school but doesn't ignore poverty. It's the "ignore poverty" part that is the bad thing here.

I disagree, his pontifications on the 'travails of those in poverty' is no better, indeed just as condescending as so many whites that believe they know what the problems are of 'poor blacks,' or poor anyone in America is like.

The 'elites' regardless of their own skin color or even their own family history, really have not walked the mile in other's shoes.

Considering the topic chosen, I find it extreme hypocrisy that the President, educated in the main in private schools, as was his wife and now his daughters, attempting to keep poor parents from providing their own children the opportunities of a better education through vouchers.

We all know what vouchers are for.

Yes, educational institutions progressives don't agree with.

Indeed:

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Support and success[edit]
The program has received support from a number of prominent D.C. politicians, including former mayor Anthony A. Williams, former D.C. Council member Kevin P. Chavous and former D.C. Board of Education president Peggy Cooper Cafritz.[1] It was opposed by Mayor Vincent C. Gray. [9]

In 2010, a randomized controlled trial conducted under the auspices of the Department of Education examined the impacts of the OSP students. While the study reported that there "is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement," the program was found to have a significant impact on graduation rates.[10] Students who were offered vouchers had a graduation rate of 82%, while those who actually used their vouchers had a graduation rate of 91%. By comparison, the rate for students who did not receive vouchers was only 70%. The study received the Department of Education’s highest rating for scientific rigor.[11] Over 90% of the study’s participants were African American, and most of the remainder were Latino American.

Further research found that students who received vouchers were 25% more likely to enroll in college than students with similar demographic characteristics who did not receive vouchers.[12]

Obama s D.C. Voucher Snub - WSJ

...

About 1,400 D.C. students this year received scholarships to attend private schools. (The President’s daughters attend Sidwell Friends, a private school.) Nearly 90% of scholarship recipients would otherwise be stuck in a school deemed failing under No Child Left Behind. The average annual household income of a scholarship recipient is $20,575, and 97% are black or Latino.

Yet only 285 of 1,774 new applicants were awarded scholarships in last year’s lottery. They’d face better odds getting into Georgetown. About 90% of scholarship students go on to attend college.


...

 

[OKTexas]

Nice spin.

There's no spin to it, even in this thread you people are more concerned with private schools than poverty.

In our case we have to be more worried, it's our children's future. I've see the results of public education under liberals....no thanks

Suit yourself it's what conservatives do best.

If you can't recognize there is a problem in public education then I don't know what to tell you

There is no problem that can be solved by ignoring it.

Ignored, hardly. Can you say a trillion dollars a year, is that ignoring the problem?

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion

Since the War on Poverty began under President Lyndon Johnson, welfare spending has exploded to sixteen times its original size. In a new report from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield tackle the welfare system, explaining how spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s.

• America has spent more on welfare than defense since 1993.
• The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history.
• Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
• One-third of all Americans receive benefits from at least one welfare program.

The War on Poverty Has Cost 22 Trillion

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There's no spin to it, even in this thread you people are more concerned with private schools than poverty.

In our case we have to be more worried, it's our children's future. I've see the results of public education under liberals....no thanks

Suit yourself it's what conservatives do best.

If you can't recognize there is a problem in public education then I don't know what to tell you

There is no problem that can be solved by ignoring it.

Ignored, hardly. Can you say a trillion dollars a year, is that ignoring the problem?

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion

Since the War on Poverty began under President Lyndon Johnson, welfare spending has exploded to sixteen times its original size. In a new report from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield tackle the welfare system, explaining how spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s.

• America has spent more on welfare than defense since 1993.
• The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history.
• Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
• One-third of all Americans receive benefits from at least one welfare program.

The War on Poverty Has Cost 22 Trillion

The war on poverty has failed, just as the war on drugs has.

 

[OKTexas]

It seems he sends his kids to private school but doesn't ignore poverty. It's the "ignore poverty" part that is the bad thing here.

Yeah....he spends a lot of time thinking about poverty while he's lining up his next putt.

At a private golf club.

 

[OKTexas]

In our case we have to be more worried, it's our children's future. I've see the results of public education under liberals....no thanks

Suit yourself it's what conservatives do best.

If you can't recognize there is a problem in public education then I don't know what to tell you

There is no problem that can be solved by ignoring it.

Ignored, hardly. Can you say a trillion dollars a year, is that ignoring the problem?

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion

Since the War on Poverty began under President Lyndon Johnson, welfare spending has exploded to sixteen times its original size. In a new report from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield tackle the welfare system, explaining how spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s.

• America has spent more on welfare than defense since 1993.
• The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history.
• Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
• One-third of all Americans receive benefits from at least one welfare program.

The War on Poverty Has Cost 22 Trillion

The war on poverty has failed, just as the war on drugs has.

Yep, because the government insures fresh supplies are imported daily.