The war on poverty:

[Freemason9]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

If only I could come up with a reply that was as stupid as your question, libs help me out here you are good at stupid.

That's some response, and it tends to verify my belief that conservatives have no solutions . . . only fear and greed.

 

[longknife]

I just saw a report yesterday that the USA has spent more taxpayer $$$ on the War on Poverty than in all the wars and conflicts we've fought since the War of Independence!!!!!

 

[Darkwind]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

Untrue.

Logical fallacy

 

[rightwinger]

$21 Trillion Later, Government Has Only Made Things Worse

Guest post by Matthew Vadum at Doug Ross @ Journal blog

The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty, states the 205-page report unveiled last month by the House Budget Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).

All we've gotten from waging this war is a larger portion of the American population dependent on government handouts – in the form of “entitlements”! What a ridiculous word.

Read the piece @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THE WAR ON POVERTY: $21 Trillion Later, Government Has Only Made Things Worse

We have spent more money on the military and yet we still have wars

I would rather spend money on the American people than on overseas wars

 

[Claudette]

How bout letting people take care of themselves?

If there is no handout by we the taxpayer then folks will think twice before having that second, third or fourth kid. If they have consequenses to their actions and no free money to support those actions then they will smarten up.

If not. Hope they like looking for a job to take care of all those consequences they are bringing into the world.

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think people don't want to take care of themselves?

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think the opportunities for good paying jobs now are no different now than they were in the 1960's?

LMAO We also have loads of freeloaders who love that EBT card filled with someone elses money. They love having free stuff provided by someone elses hard work.

I have no sympathy for any of them and I certainly don't want to bankroll their lives for em.

If you do then whip out YOUR wallet YOUR checkbook and YOUR DEBIT card. Believe me, they will take every dime you want to give them.

LBJ's war on poverty was and still is an abject failure.

Kicke em all to the curb and let them provide for themselves for a change.

This isn't 1919 anymore, though. As economies modernize and industries become more reliant upon technology (which displaces human labor), the old "wage slave" paradigm evaporates. You believe that the well-being of others is not your concern, but it IS. Revolutions can be nasty things, and it is politically essential that economies be properly managed for the maximum benefit.

Also, communications trends will ultimately result in stronger democratization movements here and worldwide, so the lucky/rich/greedy/pampered/antisocial minority will have much less power in the future.

My give a shit meter on the welfare of the poor pegs at a 0.

 

[g5000]

Didn't PoliticalChic just start this same topic a couple weeks ago? What email subscription or TV channel do you share with her, longknife?


Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an "anchored" supplemental measure - essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation - and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

Medicare has made a
dramatic difference in the number of seniors who are insured
against health care costs. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were
uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans
to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors
covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have
insurance.

 

[rightwinger]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

Prisons

Conservatives are always willing to spend money on prisons

 

[Darkwind]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

If only I could come up with a reply that was as stupid as your question, libs help me out here you are good at stupid.

That's some response, and it tends to verify my belief that conservatives have no solutions . . . only fear and greed.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell the rest of the progressive lunatics.

You don't want to hear solutions that you disagree with.

 

[g5000]

Seniors are far, far better off today than they were 50 years ago, thanks to the "war on poverty".

 

[g5000]

More bad news for you, longknife, from the same link I posted above:

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

Ain't that a bitch?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyone who believes the war on poverty was meant to end poverty is not worth speaking too.

 

[g5000]

When we apply the 2012 metrics for poverty to the measurement of poverty in 1964, we find poverty has been greatly reduced in the past 50 years. The "war on poverty" has particularly benefited seniors and blacks.

However, poverty has risen in the South.

 

[g5000]

Anyone who believes the war on poverty was meant to end poverty is not worth speaking too.

Perhaps we need a "war on illiteracy" to help you out.

 

[Erand7899]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

Why would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

How would they be richer today?

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate? The answer is what do I get, and what does it cost me to get it.

If I was working 30 hours a week and making $210 each week, I would probably just be scraping by, and if someone offered a job with 40 hours, at the same hourly rate, I would probably take it. Likewise, if someone offered me $0.50 per hour more, even with only 30 hours, I would probably take it. Why? Because I gain a little, with only a little extra effort.

If I am not working any hours, and getting $200 a week in welfare benefits, plus medicaid and food stamps, and someone offers me a job with 30 hours and $210 per week, I probably would not take it. My gain would only be $10 per week, and I would have to work 30 hours to get that $10. Not a good trade off.

And, that is why paying people to sit home, on their ass, is bad for society.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyone who believes the war on poverty was meant to end poverty is not worth speaking too.

Perhaps we need a "war on illiteracy".

Thats all you got? Good

 

[g5000]

Anyone who believes the war on poverty was meant to end poverty is not worth speaking too.

Perhaps we need a "war on illiteracy".

Thats all you got? Good

All I got? BWA-HA-HA! You would definitely benefit from a war on illiteracy.

This statement of yours is the epitome of irony, in that I have posted quite a few facts, and sourced them, while you have contributed nothing to the conversation but some abrupt bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

Why would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

How would they be richer today?

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate? The answer is what do I get, and what does it cost me to get it.

If I was working 30 hours a week and making $210 each week, I would probably just be scraping by, and if someone offered a job with 40 hours, at the same hourly rate, I would probably take it. Likewise, if someone offered me $0.50 per hour more, even with only 30 hours, I would probably take it. Why? Because I gain a little, with only a little extra effort.

If I am not working any hours, and getting $200 a week in welfare benefits, plus medicaid and food stamps, and someone offers me a job with 30 hours and $210 per week, I probably would not take it. My gain would only be $10 per week, and I would have to work 30 hours to get that $10. Not a good trade off.

And, that is why paying people to sit home, on their ass, is bad for society.

My question was:

would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

 

[g5000]

The Economic & Social Cost of Illiteracy

Illiteracy is ruining lives and is linked with an array of poor life outcomes, such as poverty, unemployment social exclusion, crime and long term illness.

Read and heed, ClosedCaption!

 

[Erand7899]

Seniors are far, far better off today than they were 50 years ago, thanks to the "war on poverty".

Poor and in poverty are not the same thing. We have a lot of poor people in this country who are not in poverty. Perhaps we should commence a war on the poor?

 

[gipper]

The war on poverty has been a proven failure for a long time, but amazingly it continues unabated.

The war on poverty, like all wars, was designed to enrich and empower the state.