The Elusive Solution To 'Poverty'

[Edgetho]

In Capitalism, someone must lose, it creates an imbalance of resources going to few instead of the many......

In the dimocrap system -- EVERYBODY loses.

Well, except for the nomenklatura and the apparatchiks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

If poverty is what you say it is, and if there is little such poverty in America,

Why did you once start this thread, with this title?

The War On Poverty Lost US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Edgetho]

The main reason for poverty is greed.....

Wrong!!

The main reason for poverty is stupidity and laziness; as you prove in here every single day.

There is NO reason why every person in this Country can't be well-off.

None

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Our poor live better than people did 1000 years ago?

What the hell are they complaining about?

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

I like it

Republicans can use it as an excuse to keep down wages
Hey....you got central heat and running water

Quit your bitching

I can always tell when I get under your skin....your language gives it away.

But, nothing new: it is an acknowledged fact that truth does that to Liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

If poverty is what you say it is, and if there is little such poverty in America,

Why did you once start this thread, with this title?

The War On Poverty Lost US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are getting close to the truth.....

....careful; you may destroy your reputation, NYLiar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back to the historical record....


6. "Malthus announced his pessimistic conclusions just in the era when they were about to be falsified.....The Industrial Revolution.


The record of famines since the end of the eighteenth century does, however, reveal one striking difference from the record up to that point. Mass starvation did not fall on a single country in the now industrialized Western world. (The sole exception is the potato famine in Ireland; and even that is a doubtful exception because the Industrial Revolution had barely touched mid-nineteenth-century Ireland—still a one crop agricultural country.)



It is not that there have ceased to be droughts, pests, plant diseases, and crop failures in the modern Western world, but that when they occur there is no famine, because the stricken countries are quickly able to import foodstuffs from abroad, not only because the modern means of transport exist, but because, out of their industrial production, these countries have the means to pay for such foodstuffs.


[Say 'thank you, capitalism!']



In the Western world today, in other words, poverty and hunger—until the mid-eighteenth century the normal condition of mankind—have been reduced to a residual problem affecting only a minority; and that minority is being steadily reduced."
Hazlitt, Op.Cit.

See where this is going?
See the quantitative solution, here?

 

[rightwinger]

Our poor live better than people did 1000 years ago?

What the hell are they complaining about?

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

I like it

Republicans can use it as an excuse to keep down wages
Hey....you got central heat and running water

Quit your bitching

I can always tell when I get under your skin....your language gives it away.

But, nothing new: it is an acknowledged fact that truth does that to Liberals.

The poor need to listen to PC

Be grateful you did not live 2500 years ago, you would not have had it as good

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

If poverty is what you say it is, and if there is little such poverty in America,

Why did you once start this thread, with this title?

The War On Poverty Lost US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are getting close to the truth.....

....careful; you may destroy your reputation, NYLiar.

The truth being that one day you say the war on poverty was lost, and the next day you declare it a total victory?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

If poverty is what you say it is, and if there is little such poverty in America,

Why did you once start this thread, with this title?

The War On Poverty Lost US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are getting close to the truth.....

....careful; you may destroy your reputation, NYLiar.

The truth being that one day you say the war on poverty was lost, and the next day you declare it a total victory?

Your schtick just ain't workin'....

 

[NYcarbineer]

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

I like it

Republicans can use it as an excuse to keep down wages
Hey....you got central heat and running water

Quit your bitching

I can always tell when I get under your skin....your language gives it away.

But, nothing new: it is an acknowledged fact that truth does that to Liberals.

The poor need to listen to PC

Be grateful you did not live 2500 years ago, you would not have had it as good

What she comically misses is that the poor in America are not in extreme poverty BECAUSE the government raises them above that condition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

If poverty is what you say it is, and if there is little such poverty in America,

Why did you once start this thread, with this title?

The War On Poverty Lost US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are getting close to the truth.....

....careful; you may destroy your reputation, NYLiar.

The truth being that one day you say the war on poverty was lost, and the next day you declare it a total victory?

Your schtick just ain't workin'....

You'd be the last to know, which is a big part of the enjoyment of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

I like it

Republicans can use it as an excuse to keep down wages
Hey....you got central heat and running water

Quit your bitching

I can always tell when I get under your skin....your language gives it away.

But, nothing new: it is an acknowledged fact that truth does that to Liberals.

The poor need to listen to PC

Be grateful you did not live 2500 years ago, you would not have had it as good

If she was alive 2500 years ago, at least she'd most likely be in an occupation she was better suited for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dealing 'poverty' a death blow:

7. And when we speak of the Industrial Revolution..." [Malthus] failed to see that, once men in any place (it happened to be his own England) succeeded in earning and saving a little surplus, made even a moderate capital accummulation, and lived in an era of political freedom and protection for property, their liberated industry, thought, and invention could at last make it possible for them enormously and acceleratively to multiply per capita production beyond anything achieved or dreamed of in the past."
Hazlitt, Op. Cit.



a. And, who else got it wrong?

"Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006




Capitalism, industry......the anodyne to poverty, and anathema to big government totalitarians.

 

[rightwinger]

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

I like it

Republicans can use it as an excuse to keep down wages
Hey....you got central heat and running water

Quit your bitching

I can always tell when I get under your skin....your language gives it away.

But, nothing new: it is an acknowledged fact that truth does that to Liberals.

The poor need to listen to PC

Be grateful you did not live 2500 years ago, you would not have had it as good

If she was alive 2500 years ago, at least she'd most likely be in an occupation she was better suited for.

She would still cut and paste

 

[DGS49]

It's funny that when Libs rail on about the evils of capitalism, they are strangely silent about the dearth of places where the alternative (socialism, communism) has proven successful. Consider the various "workers' paradises" of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and so on. All quickly turned in to Kleptocracies where the ruling thugs stole all of the wealth that had been confiscated from the formerly-rich aristocrats, and the common people lived in poverty essentially FOREVER.

Limited socialism has worked for a while in western Europe, where most countries had homogeneous populations and a strong work ethic, but as that work ethic erodes and the population is gradually replaced by immigrants wanting to leech off their Social Safety Net, they are all inevitably going into the crapper. Just like with GM and Chrysler, it's just a question of when.

Unlike the Liberal common knowledge, the "success" of an economy is not determined by the living standards of those at the bottom. It is determined by the living standards of the majority of the population, and the continuing potential of EVERY CITIZEN to rise up from poverty to great wealth on the merits of his own talent and willingness to work hard. And by that standard, the U.S. remains a shining example of a successful economy, where people STILL are fighting their way from all parts of the globe TO GET IN!

Libs have no fucking idea how great this country or its economy are. They are constantly whining about how "rich" other people are, thinking naively that when one person is rich that means that a bunch of others have to be poor. You don't learn much Econ when studying Fine Arts, PolySci, or Ethnic Studies. That's what happens when Academe is dominated by former Draft Dodgers who have never had a real job in their entire pathetic lives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. So we have an historical review of "poverty."


What is to be learned from same?
Simply that in contemporary America......there is no real "poverty."
That's right: by the actual definition of no home, no heat, no food.....no real poverty.

The poor in America are simply not as wealthy as some others.



Now, that's a problem if one yearns for the sort of government about which Tocqueville warned:
“an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” ... this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.”

How can we have this huge, overarching government without the the justification of the need to take care of the homeless, starving masses of 'poor'???

 

[PoliticalChic]

But big government has no intention of reducing the numbers referred to as 'poor'....




Now...about that 'Elusive Solution to poverty'......


9."The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.


And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty:

(1) finish school;

(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and

(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.



. ...we can add one more important stepping stone onthe road out of poverty—

(4)savings and the accumulation of wealth.... “for the vast majority of households,
thepathway out of poverty is not throughconsumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf Scribd



So.....if the solution to poverty is as clear...and as well known....why is it that hardly a dent has been made in 'poverty' in half a century an $15 trilllion?


Because the scam still works.
That's why.

 

[orogenicman]

Isn't it interesting that the ones who most stress the need for ending government assistance are usually those who need it the least, and have had the least exposure to poverty?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't it interesting that the ones who most stress the need for ending government assistance are usually those who need it the least, and have had the least exposure to poverty?

Out of the woodwork, another dope who accepts the big government fabrications about 'poverty.'

Too bad you didn't read the whole thread.....you might have recognized that you can't dispute any of it....

..and avoided embarrassing yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

Isn't it interesting that the ones who most stress the need for ending government assistance are usually those who need it the least, and have had the least exposure to poverty?

Out of the woodwork, another dope who accepts the big government fabrications about 'poverty.'

Too bad you didn't read the whole thread.....you might have recognized that you can't dispute any of it....

..and avoided embarrassing yourself.

So, did government create the rampant poverty that was the great depression, or was that all Wall street and big business?