An abbreviated and simplistic view of where the Presidential candidates stand relative to poverty. On the plus side, it is factual. On the negative side, it barely skims the surface.

It's a concise presentation of several candidates' positions on issues related to poverty, with links to the basis for their findings.

Poor journalism. Its my first experience re:Pew Forum "data?" On a personal level I would disregard this article for candidate selection. While there appears to be some factual nuggets (i.e. voted for, or vetoed), there is a shotgun approach to presenting candidates positions. No clue on the sourcing. Candidates statements? Selective candidates historical positions do not necessarily define nor confirm current position. There is no juxtaposition comparison of facts, or issue vs position (a relatively simple concept). Use of negative emotive words(accuses, criticized, touts) and semi-passive (indicated, supports, helped author ), rather than active words (he eliminated) to establish tone is a bit deceptive. Only two candidates ... More »

A good summary of the public declared positions of many (most) of the 08 presidential hopefuls. Hyperlinks provided to candidates statements/interviews. Being professional politicians, most of the platform planks presented are a little wishy washy, but that is US politics for you. Pew does a fair job of pulling together the candidates stated positions.

An excellent summary of presidential candidates’ positions about welfare: Hilary wants to put the lazy recipients to work. Brownback says recipients must stop sinning, get married, and get to work. Biden wants to ensure people who steal from the system by going bankrupt don’t get away with it. Edwards wants to spend America out of poverty. Giuliani thinks those on welfare should get a job or start job training, ignore his bragging about New York. Huckaby believes America cannot solve poverty unless Jesus is involved. McCain favors business over poverty. Obama argues for a strong sense of empathy–whatever that means. Richardson favors tax credits–how will that work? Like Hilary, Romney wants lazy recipients to get to work. ... More »

This is worse than pathetic. It starts with unlisted and non-cited stances on what poverty is, who is in poverty, and what can be done about it. It goes downhill from there. The short blurbs on the candidates appear to be accurate, although incredibly limited, without context, and unanchored in any fundamental policy choice. A total waste of time.

Makes you wonder why anyone would vote for any of these folks. If you want to know how they stand on helping people in need just look at their Katrina records. Which one of them said that the people in the affected area should rebuild it with all the money that has gone to private contractors? Oh, wait a minute that would be putting our money where their mouth is - can't do that - Heck of a job Brownie and the private contractors wouldn't approve. Anyway those people are doing just fine - right?

There are two problems with this story/snippet. 1. In order to have enough ink for each candidate, they decided to put in policy proposals/votes that don't have anything to do with poverty. The Hillary Clinton write-up is the epitome of this. If this is supposed to be about candidates views/policies on poverty, why then are they describing Clinton's vast empathy for the middle class when she does not mention poverty at all? 2. Given that John Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, why do they devote so little space to his views on the subject since he is the only candidate that is specifically addressing it as a major part of his campaign? Unfortunately, the article falls into the tired trap of lazy journalism where ... More »