The War On Poverty: Lost

[Conservative65]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

 

[zeke]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

I have asked this question before. Got no answer.

How many welfare recipients actually VOTE? Any idea? Or does it just sound so good to say that welfare is vote buying?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The program had the mindset of giving a hand up. That's what the bleeding heart Liberals tell us. When it began in the mid 1960s, the poverty rate was just about what it is now. The difference is the amount of money spent that did nothing to alleviate poverty.

The problme with the items you listed is that if someone can have those, the money spent on their needs really didn't need to be spent. Seems they had enough money and the problem was with money management. If someone can afford non need items then claims they have no money to buy needed ones, they are a liar, a poor money manager, or a combination of both.

A successful program would be one where people like you, when you saw a need, would reach into your own pocket to buy the items for people which taxpayer funds currently fund.

SAY WHAT? The government ALREADY reaches into my pocket for poor people. It's called the income tax.
Do you pay any income tax? I am a taxpayer. Are you?

Wouldn't you rather be allowed to keep that portion that the government gives to "poor people" and you decide who is goes to....rather than the current way it is given out, a way that can only be compared to the way candy is distributed when a piñata is involved.

 

[Conservative65]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

I don't believe the conservative guy gives a fuck if the poor people are better off. He thinks HE will be better off if those poor people didn't get his tax money.

Don't know why he feels that way. The government is not going to send him a welfare rebate check.

If I get to keep more of what I've earned, I am better off.

That's right, I won't get a rebate check. I actually want to EARN what I have not have it handed to me.

And who is it in the Federal government that has given you the idea that you will keep more of your money if there were less poor people needing help?

Sounds to me like you need to get a better paying job if you aren't earning enough to do what you want to do.

Sounds to me as if you don't understand the difference between gross and net pay. I make plenty. Don't confuse because of your low mental level that I don't make plenty. I do what I want to do. That doesn't change the fact that I want to keep more or it for ME.

If there were less that the government thought deserved someone else's money, programs that take more wouldn't be around. The government didn't tell me that, good sense does.

 

[zeke]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

Hey I can match you ridiculous idea for ridiculous idea.

How about this. You make it so that my tax dollars are not being spent on subsidies for corporations and un necessary war and I'll have it so that my tax dollars help out the neediest people we have. Deal?

 

[Conservative65]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

I have asked this question before. Got no answer.

How many welfare recipients actually VOTE? Any idea? Or does it just sound so good to say that welfare is vote buying?

You forgot to include those who support welfare recipients getting someone else's money. You don't have to receive it to support someone else getting another person's money. There are plenty of bleeding hearts that do vote on behalf of the leeches. The end result is the same as if the leeches themselves voted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

The war on poverty provides food stamps, heat/energy assistance, and housing assistance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

I have asked this question before. Got no answer.

How many welfare recipients actually VOTE? Any idea? Or does it just sound so good to say that welfare is vote buying?

Zeke...sometimes the 'common knowledge' is correct.
As is this one: welfare recipients vote and vote Democrat.


"The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end.
.... 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties."
Are Welfare Recipients Mostly Republican

 

[Conservative65]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

Hey I can match you ridiculous idea for ridiculous idea.

How about this. You make it so that my tax dollars are not being spent on subsidies for corporations and un necessary war and I'll have it so that my tax dollars help out the neediest people we have. Deal?

As for corporations, I agree. As for war, when you can have that word and those involving raising a military taken out of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, go for it. As for necessary or unnecessary, not your place to decide.

When you can show me the word food stamps, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution, you can run your mouth about things that already are. You're the typical retard Liberal that thinks things not in the Constitution should happen but things that are shouldn't.

 

[Conservative65]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

The war on poverty provides food stamps, heat/energy assistance, and housing assistance.

You proving your compassion involve you buying their food, paying the power bill, and funding where they live. I have my own to pay.

 

[zeke]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The program had the mindset of giving a hand up. That's what the bleeding heart Liberals tell us. When it began in the mid 1960s, the poverty rate was just about what it is now. The difference is the amount of money spent that did nothing to alleviate poverty.

The problme with the items you listed is that if someone can have those, the money spent on their needs really didn't need to be spent. Seems they had enough money and the problem was with money management. If someone can afford non need items then claims they have no money to buy needed ones, they are a liar, a poor money manager, or a combination of both.

A successful program would be one where people like you, when you saw a need, would reach into your own pocket to buy the items for people which taxpayer funds currently fund.

SAY WHAT? The government ALREADY reaches into my pocket for poor people. It's called the income tax.
Do you pay any income tax? I am a taxpayer. Are you?

Wouldn't you rather be allowed to keep that portion that the government gives to "poor people" and you decide who is goes to....rather than the current way it is given out, a way that can only be compared to the way candy is distributed when a piñata is involved.

I will ask you the same question I asked before.

Who in the government has given you the idea that you would get to keep more of your money if there wasn't welfare?

Maybe you've missed this part. But we already spend billions more money than tax revenue would allow for.
You really think if there was no welfare spending that you would then be the beneficiary of the governments cash?

More than likely any welfare savings would be used to give the top 1% another tax cut.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The program had the mindset of giving a hand up. That's what the bleeding heart Liberals tell us. When it began in the mid 1960s, the poverty rate was just about what it is now. The difference is the amount of money spent that did nothing to alleviate poverty.

The problme with the items you listed is that if someone can have those, the money spent on their needs really didn't need to be spent. Seems they had enough money and the problem was with money management. If someone can afford non need items then claims they have no money to buy needed ones, they are a liar, a poor money manager, or a combination of both.

A successful program would be one where people like you, when you saw a need, would reach into your own pocket to buy the items for people which taxpayer funds currently fund.

The poverty rate isn't what it was then.

The poverty rate is based on one's income BEFORE any assistance is applied. One of purposes of the war on poverty is to lift people out of that poverty.

To argue that the war on poverty is a failure because it has to take care of more poor/low income people now is absurd.

 

[zeke]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

Hey I can match you ridiculous idea for ridiculous idea.

How about this. You make it so that my tax dollars are not being spent on subsidies for corporations and un necessary war and I'll have it so that my tax dollars help out the neediest people we have. Deal?

As for corporations, I agree. As for war, when you can have that word and those involving raising a military taken out of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, go for it. As for necessary or unnecessary, not your place to decide.

When you can show me the word food stamps, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution, you can run your mouth about things that already are. You're the typical retard Liberal that thinks things not in the Constitution should happen but things that are shouldn't.

You mean like it is not your place to decide if a person should have the benefit of receiving welfare. Got it.

Hey and show me where in the COTUS where invasion of another country with out cause is authorized.

Seems to me that COTUS addresses DEFENSE of the nation.

Invading a country that didn't attack us is not in the DEFENSE of this country as defined in the COTUS.

Or do you have another version that only right wing idiots know about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

The war on poverty provides food stamps, heat/energy assistance, and housing assistance.

You proving your compassion involve you buying their food, paying the power bill, and funding where they live. I have my own to pay.

lol, are you aware that the author of this thread doesn't even work?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe the author of this thread should explain to her readers that although she insists Medicaid is a failure,

she doesn't want to get rid of it.

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

How can the war on poverty be the failure people like you claim it is, when you all are saying all the time that our poor have it better than most of the people of the world?

Big screens, housing, phones etc etc. How in the hell is that a failure?

What does success look like to you? People living under bridges and dying in the streets?

Define your idea of successful poor people.

The problem is that you accept the Leftist definition of 'poverty.'

It has become the buying-votes industry.

Poverty means no food, no heat, no home.

The war on poverty provides food stamps, heat/energy assistance, and housing assistance.

You proving your compassion involve you buying their food, paying the power bill, and funding where they live. I have my own to pay.

The percentage of your income that goes to federal income taxes is at about the rate it was in the 1950's, BEFORE the so-called war on poverty began.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So long as the global economy is based on capitalism, you're always going to have poverty. It's the inevitible result of capitalist greed.

And if the global economy is ever based on socialism...you will have death camps, gulags and state slavery...I'll stick with the free market...you know...the system that has lifted more people out of poverty than anything before it...

So the nations in the EU aren't socialist states?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is about the 20th thread started by PoliticalChic complaining about her hard earned money going to the poor,

when she doesn't have any hard earned money going to the poor.

It's hilarious.

 

[Wildman]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

If you think the war is lost then you must believe that the war must end.

Therefore you must believe that Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, EIC, fuel and energy assistance, educational assistance, and all other programs that effectively represent the war on poverty should be ceased.

After that is done, how long before we win the war on poverty, using your plan of no programs for the poor?

==============
who the fuck are you to tell that beautiful woman she "MUST" do, say or believe anything you pose ?

........ ........ you are so full of

 

[Wildman]

When specific words related to the military in Article I, Section 8 are removed you will have an argument. When words like healthcare, food stamps, etc. are added to it, you'll have a point. Until then, I have the Constitution to back up my support for taxes for the military and you simply run your damn mouth about what you want it to say.

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a specific level of spending for the military, fucktard.

I'm not surprised you don't know that.

I never said there was. What I did say is the military is a delegated power and what you support isn't. I'm not surprised some retarded bleeding heart didn't know that.

If it wasn't it would have been challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. Do you have any idea how our government works?

I also have an idea about what is and what isn't in the Constitution. You do not. You simply think one person owes another person something in life. Consider yourself lucky you don't rely on someone like me to help you. I'd look, laugh, walk right over you, and watch to do without for one reason and one reason only. You think it's owed.

The People decide. The People have decided. When you get enough People to support your extremist views, then you can decide.

THAT is how the government works.

=================
in plain English..., "COMMUNISM" !!

 

[zeke]

This is about the 20th thread started by PoliticalChic complaining about her hard earned money going to the poor,

when she doesn't have any hard earned money going to the poor.

It's hilarious.

Is that for real politichick? You don't work? Or pay taxes? How do you live? Off the kindness of others? How?