The War On Poverty: Lost

[iamwhatiseem]

Even those lazy bastards that are paraplegic, they'll find you a damn job...

 

[Bfgrn]

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uh, PC, the reason why FDR took it over was because after the Capitalists fucked it up as badly as they did in 1929, private charities couldn't get the job done.

NOw, if you want to argue that we need welfare reform, I'm totally there with you. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. I would be all for work requirements and even something like FDR's CCC or WPA to put those folks to work to get a check.

but here's the problem. A lot of the poor ARE working. Big companies like WalMart and McDonalds that pay minimum wage and instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and medicaid.

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

 

[JoeB131]

[
no jesus said don't tax the poor they were taking it from the poor you idiot but you know everything about every thing ... must hurt your head with all of this knowledge you carry... do you go through a lot of aspirin ???

Actually, Jesus said to render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. Caesar's picture on the coin, must be his money.

I guess if he lived today, he's day "Render onto Washington what is Washington's".

 

[JoeB131]

[

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

Yes, it was a particularly bad recession that had already dragged on for THREE YEARS before FDR got there.

True, other countries got out a little quicker, by totally scrapping that whole "Democracy" thing and having a World War.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how so called Christians always like to fight anti-poverty and never, ever use Jesus Christ as an example of bad when it comes to charity...equality and knowing that accumulating vast amounts of wealth is wicked and a sin...
Yet these people are the first to fly the banner of being christian when it suits them....

Time for drop-draw's educational moment.

Christian charity was the way to go, and in effect until Stalin's pal FDR took it over.


1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.


2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.


3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.

4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.


A cornerstone of the Liberal philosophy is that one never make judgments about the behavior of other.
Notice how that view eliminates the compassion and charity prevalent in an earlier America, one in which 'need' was the driver, not 'want.'



Hard to believe how many have been convinced to support the proven stupidity of today's "welfare system."

If they are so generous then why do you people sit here and bitch about it so much?

. Cultures build systems of charity based on the god they worship, whether distant deists, or a personal theistic God of justice and mercy.....or simply government.

The 'justice' part produced an understanding of compassion that was hard-headed and, at the same time, warm-hearted. As 'justice' meant punishment for wrong-doing, it was perfectly correct for the slothful to suffer.
Olasky, Op. Cit.

If charity worked government help for the poor would never have been necessary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, PC, the reason why FDR took it over was because after the Capitalists fucked it up as badly as they did in 1929, private charities couldn't get the job done.

NOw, if you want to argue that we need welfare reform, I'm totally there with you. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. I would be all for work requirements and even something like FDR's CCC or WPA to put those folks to work to get a check.

but here's the problem. A lot of the poor ARE working. Big companies like WalMart and McDonalds that pay minimum wage and instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and medicaid.

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

The country was out recession in 1933.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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" !!

A democratic constitutional republic is now an example of 'communism'?

lol. PC said it was an example of Nazism.

Make up your minds, demented ones..

Communism and Nazism are variations on the same theme.

Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race... Communism....international socialism.


And you espouse....which?

You compared our system to Nazism yesterday. It was one of your more memorable attempts to have an original thought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

Yes, it was a particularly bad recession that had already dragged on for THREE YEARS before FDR got there.

True, other countries got out a little quicker, by totally scrapping that whole "Democracy" thing and having a World War.

So...you actually believe that FDR made things better?????

You should study history.


Here:


1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %.
At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.


2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.



Too bad you never studied history, huh?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Actually, Jesus said to render onto Caesar what is Caesar. Caesar picture on the coin, must be his money.

I guess if he lived today, he's day "Render onto Washington what is Washington's".

Actually, this is one of the most misquoted and misrepresented versus in the Bible.
And virtually always quoted with out context.
The context was Jesus was surrounded by Jews who wanted to trap him by the question, knowing that if he publicly stated that he opposed taxation - they could hand him over to the authorities to be arrested.
Jesus then called them hypocrites (because they were exceedingly wealthy and spent most of their time acquiring wealth), and asked for one of them to produce a Roman coin; which they did. He asked them "And whose face is on this coin?" - they answered "Caesar" - so Jesus replied "render unto Caesar to what is Caesar, and to God what is God's"
It is a statement about devotion to God, not about duty to pay taxes.
Your welcome.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, PC, the reason why FDR took it over was because after the Capitalists fucked it up as badly as they did in 1929, private charities couldn't get the job done.

NOw, if you want to argue that we need welfare reform, I'm totally there with you. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. I would be all for work requirements and even something like FDR's CCC or WPA to put those folks to work to get a check.

but here's the problem. A lot of the poor ARE working. Big companies like WalMart and McDonalds that pay minimum wage and instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and medicaid.

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

The country was out recession in 1933.

That's kind of like saying we are "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering.

1929, like 2008, was a WORLD WIDE Depression. and the after effects lasted a lot longer.

 

[billyerock1991]

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

Where did she say she wanted "no programs for the poor"?
What I read is the WAY THE WAR ON POVERTY was fought, i.e. - colossal, ineffective corrupt programs - is a failure. The liberal answer for everything is always - ALWAYS - the same. Create a new government bureaucracy, appropriate massive funds and simply hand it out.
That would actually be awesome if it would work. If all you had to do was build a building, fill it with managers and clerical staff, give them the ability to write checks - and problems went away!! <POOF!>
But at no time in the history of the world has societal problems been solved with the government in charge of handing out money/goods. Never. And never will be.
The answer to poverty is, and will always be - OPPORTUNITY. Not free shit.
People who WANT to get out of poverty can ONLY do so with opportunity to secure income. I.E. - a JOB.

Even those lazy bastards that are paraplegic, they'll find you a damn job...

Each day you manage to produce a post so stupid that it must have been produced via the pic in your avi....

And the fact that you believe it to be clever makes it even more stupid.

have you look at yours ??? that say stupid all over .... with your mr know it all 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 right wing and right wing only talking points ... which 99% of the time isn't worth the time to point out how moronic they are ... then when we do show you how wrong you are you come back with, "how old are you" or "how stupid you are" but you never try to dispute our responses to be incorrect .... thats your way of doing things here ... then we are supposed to take you serious ??? really???

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, Jesus said to render onto Caesar what is Caesar. Caesar picture on the coin, must be his money.

I guess if he lived today, he's day "Render onto Washington what is Washington's".

Actually, this is one of the most misquoted and misrepresented versus in the Bible.
And virtually always quoted with out context.
The context was Jesus was surrounded by Jews who wanted to trap him by the question, knowing that if he publicly stated that he opposed taxation - they could hand him over to the authorities to be arrested.
Jesus then called them hypocrites (because they were exceedingly wealthy and spent most of their time acquiring wealth), and asked for one of them to produce a Roman coin; which they did. He asked them "And whose face is on this coin?" - they answered "Caesar" - so Jesus replied "render unto Caesar to what is Caesar, and to God what is God's"
It is a statement about devotion to God, not about duty to pay taxes.
Your welcome.

So Jesus told them to pay their fucking taxes and shut up about it? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, PC, the reason why FDR took it over was because after the Capitalists fucked it up as badly as they did in 1929, private charities couldn't get the job done.

NOw, if you want to argue that we need welfare reform, I'm totally there with you. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. I would be all for work requirements and even something like FDR's CCC or WPA to put those folks to work to get a check.

but here's the problem. A lot of the poor ARE working. Big companies like WalMart and McDonalds that pay minimum wage and instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and medicaid.

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

The country was out recession in 1933.

That's kind of like saying we are "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering.

1929, like 2008, was a WORLD WIDE Depression. and the after effects lasted a lot longer.

Yes but conditions got steadily better from a very deep rut after FDR became president. Trying to blame the Depression on FDR is just one more RWnut myth

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

Another "ain't it awful" thread by the Queen curmudgeon, sans any hint of what could/should be done. Pointing fingers at liberals, when a problem which has existed since the birth of our nation, and bi-partisan votes have funded efforts to end poverty is at best disingenuous.

But let us not leave this thread, one which is important and deserves more than a partisan spin. In another thread I posted the following link, so that an informed debate on the issue and real world ideas can be vetted.

Follow the history of efforts to build a safety net beginning in 1776, and follow the timeline to 1969:

1776-1799 ElderWeb

 

[JoeB131]

[

So...you actually believe that FDR made things better?????

You should study history.

?

No, people who lived through that time period believed that. I'm old enough to have met them and talked to them.

That's why he was ELECTED FOUR TIMES.

While the rich hated FDR, most working folks know he made their lives better, that they were in FAR better shape thanks to his policies.

 

[billyerock1991]

Actually, Jesus said to render onto Caesar what is Caesar. Caesar picture on the coin, must be his money.

I guess if he lived today, he's day "Render onto Washington what is Washington's".

Actually, this is one of the most misquoted and misrepresented versus in the Bible.
And virtually always quoted with out context.
The context was Jesus was surrounded by Jews who wanted to trap him by the question, knowing that if he publicly stated that he opposed taxation - they could hand him over to the authorities to be arrested.
Jesus then called them hypocrites (because they were exceedingly wealthy and spent most of their time acquiring wealth), and asked for one of them to produce a Roman coin; which they did. He asked them "And whose face is on this coin?" - they answered "Caesar" - so Jesus replied "render unto Caesar to what is Caesar, and to God what is God's"
It is a statement about devotion to God, not about duty to pay taxes.
Your welcome.

Priceless

 

[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.

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

My job?


Pleeeezzzzze.....


Thankfully, I'm independently wealthy, not obligated to actually work, as you peasants are.

You see, I'm heir to a family fortune.

For generations we've owned, via a closely held family corporation, the Nome (Alaska) to Rome (Italy) Railroad.

We are shielded from ObamaCare by the Hobby Lobby decision.

We use polar bears as conductors.....refugees from Global Warming.


And, President Obama actually made reference to our endeavor:

Why make something up?

Your real circumstances, in the context of your penchant for bitching about the poor, are funny enough.

 

[billyerock1991]

Funny how so called Christians always like to fight anti-poverty and never, ever use Jesus Christ as an example of bad when it comes to charity...equality and knowing that accumulating vast amounts of wealth is wicked and a sin...
Yet these people are the first to fly the banner of being christian when it suits them....

Time for drop-draw's educational moment.

Christian charity was the way to go, and in effect until Stalin's pal FDR took it over.


1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.


2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.


3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.

4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.


A cornerstone of the Liberal philosophy is that one never make judgments about the behavior of other.
Notice how that view eliminates the compassion and charity prevalent in an earlier America, one in which 'need' was the driver, not 'want.'



Hard to believe how many have been convinced to support the proven stupidity of today's "welfare system."

like always you points haven't any baring on today... just you trying to show off that vast knowledge of yours ... you should invest in aspirin stock

 

[billyerock1991]

[

So...you actually believe that FDR made things better?????

You should study history.

?

No, people who lived through that time period believed that. I'm old enough to have met them and talked to them.

That's why he was ELECTED FOUR TIMES.

While the rich hated FDR, most working folks know he made their lives better, that they were in FAR better shape thanks to his policies.

if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble ... especially when WW2 hit