Why Do Republicans Pretend the War On Poverty was supposed to END POVERTY?

[Fair&Balanced]

But you and I BOTH know that those people who have made a lifestyle of welfare most generally vote Democrat on a regular basis, and THAT is the people most people are sick of.

Thats funny. I assume you're referring to a certain segment of society here. Since naming races is a bad thing rolleyes I find it funny that the Republicans made it a mission to demonize one segment (wink) of society and then turn around and claim that those same demonized people arent aware of the demonization. They just happen to vote against that party because they want stuff.

So in response to a reaction to your demonization you double down on demonizing.

Its like putting your foot in the water and then crying about a wet foot.

No , in fact I was not referring to race. If I need to refer to race, I'll do so. Plenty of white trash out there voting Democrat to keep their welfare as well.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But you and I BOTH know that those people who have made a lifestyle of welfare most generally vote Democrat on a regular basis, and THAT is the people most people are sick of.

Thats funny. I assume you're referring to a certain segment of society here. Since naming races is a bad thing rolleyes I find it funny that the Republicans made it a mission to demonize one segment (wink) of society and then turn around and claim that those same demonized people arent aware of the demonization. They just happen to vote against that party because they want stuff.

So in response to a reaction to your demonization you double down on demonizing.

Its like putting your foot in the water and then crying about a wet foot.

No , in fact I was not referring to race. If I need to refer to race, I'll do so. Plenty of white trash out there voting Democrat to keep their welfare as well.

Yeah well, how about the entire rest of my post?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

But you and I BOTH know that those people who have made a lifestyle of welfare most generally vote Democrat on a regular basis, and THAT is the people most people are sick of.

Thats funny. I assume you're referring to a certain segment of society here. Since naming races is a bad thing rolleyes I find it funny that the Republicans made it a mission to demonize one segment (wink) of society and then turn around and claim that those same demonized people arent aware of the demonization. They just happen to vote against that party because they want stuff.

So in response to a reaction to your demonization you double down on demonizing.

Its like putting your foot in the water and then crying about a wet foot.

No , in fact I was not referring to race. If I need to refer to race, I'll do so. Plenty of white trash out there voting Democrat to keep their welfare as well.

Yeah well, how about the entire rest of my post?

What about it? I don't feel obligated to answer for people who have done something I didn't do.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Great just ignore what you cant answer. Awesome

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Great just ignore what you cant answer. Awesome

I didn't ignore it, I flatly stated that I don't feel an obligation to answer for other people. I actually find it offensive that you would even try to insist that I do. Do I ask you to answer for the people who want to kill cops, for example? Of course I don't because you don't want to kill cops.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Great just ignore what you cant answer. Awesome

I didn't ignore it, I flatly stated that I don't feel an obligation to answer for other people. I actually find it offensive that you would even try to insist that I do. Do I ask you to answer for the people who want to kill cops, for example? Of course I don't because you don't want to kill cops.

I asked YOU about YOURSELF not about other people. Why do YOU SAY dems only vote dem for benefits while ignoring every other reason that exists? Even reasons that I plainly laid out.

Dont get shy on my now

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Great just ignore what you cant answer. Awesome

I didn't ignore it, I flatly stated that I don't feel an obligation to answer for other people. I actually find it offensive that you would even try to insist that I do. Do I ask you to answer for the people who want to kill cops, for example? Of course I don't because you don't want to kill cops.

I asked YOU about YOURSELF not about other people. Why do YOU SAY dems only vote dem for benefits while ignoring every other reason that exists? Even reasons that I plainly laid out.

Dont get shy on my now

At no point did I say dems only voted dem for benefits. Please quote me correctly.

I DID say that Dems (with a capital D denoting those in power) use welfare as a means to get votes. And okay that isn't entirely correct because they don't use welfare alone, they also use scare tactics and other dishonest means to convince stupid people to vote Democrat (and let's face it, most Americans are STUPID and easily duped)

Republicans use many of the same tactics, so don't get all butthurt thinking I'm picking on Democrats, but when it comes to WELFARE that is a Democratic tactic, and WELFARE is what this thread is about .

 

[ClosedCaption]

Great just ignore what you cant answer. Awesome

I didn't ignore it, I flatly stated that I don't feel an obligation to answer for other people. I actually find it offensive that you would even try to insist that I do. Do I ask you to answer for the people who want to kill cops, for example? Of course I don't because you don't want to kill cops.

I asked YOU about YOURSELF not about other people. Why do YOU SAY dems only vote dem for benefits while ignoring every other reason that exists? Even reasons that I plainly laid out.

Dont get shy on my now

At no point did I say dems only voted dem for benefits. Please quote me correctly.

I DID say that Dems (with a capital D denoting those in power) use welfare as a means to get votes.

So what you're saying is a popular legislation gets votes? Well, surprise

And okay that isn't entirely correct because they don't use welfare alone, they also use scare tactics and other dishonest means to convince stupid people to vote Democrat (and let's face it, most Americans are STUPID and easily duped)

So there are more considerations than just buying votes as you put it. We're getting there...

Republicans use many of the same tactics, so don't get all butthurt thinking I'm picking on Democrats, but when it comes to WELFARE that is a Democratic tactic, and WELFARE is what this thread is about .

Welfare is popular, people like it. Sorry about that

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Great just ignore what you cant answer. Awesome

I didn't ignore it, I flatly stated that I don't feel an obligation to answer for other people. I actually find it offensive that you would even try to insist that I do. Do I ask you to answer for the people who want to kill cops, for example? Of course I don't because you don't want to kill cops.

I asked YOU about YOURSELF not about other people. Why do YOU SAY dems only vote dem for benefits while ignoring every other reason that exists? Even reasons that I plainly laid out.

Dont get shy on my now

At no point did I say dems only voted dem for benefits. Please quote me correctly.

I DID say that Dems (with a capital D denoting those in power) use welfare as a means to get votes.

So what you're saying is a popular legislation gets votes? Well, surprise

And okay that isn't entirely correct because they don't use welfare alone, they also use scare tactics and other dishonest means to convince stupid people to vote Democrat (and let's face it, most Americans are STUPID and easily duped)

So there are more considerations than just buying votes as you put it. We're getting there...

Republicans use many of the same tactics, so don't get all butthurt thinking I'm picking on Democrats, but when it comes to WELFARE that is a Democratic tactic, and WELFARE is what this thread is about .

Welfare is popular, people like it. Sorry about that

Of course getting something for nothing is popular. That doesn't make it any way to run a fucking country. What happens when more people are receiving free stuff than are paying income tax? We're almost at that point now and see a $20T fucking debt.

The "war on poverty" has impoverished the USG , how is that for irony?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Of course getting something for nothing is popular.

Did you forget that quick that most people on welfare have a job? Again?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Everything you need to know about the war on poverty

 

[Hutch Starskey]

But does it really matter?
What is the percentage of poor now, compared to when that started?

"A recent study from economists at Columbia broke down changes in poverty before and after the government gets involved in the form of taxes and transfers, and found that, when you take government intervention into account, poverty is down considerably from 1967 to 2012, from 26 percent to 16 percent"

Everything you need to know about the war on poverty

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

I may not have asked the right question. Do you believe that the so called war on poverty was the BEST possible solution for the problems you believe it has helped ?

I dont believe there is a BEST of anything to be honest. I imagine there might be other plans that could've been better, thats always possible. But saying that somewhere something better exists doesnt mean that what you have is a failure. Thats a pretty low bar for failure.

I mean obviously killing all the poor people would also decrease poverty, but I don't think anyone would call that a good solution.

I don't believe there is a best for most situations either, but I do believe there are BETTER solutions. And the war on poverty has set a pretty damn low bar for actually helping people.

There might be better solutions but no one is presenting them for consideration

Certainly not Republicans or their Congress.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because it doesnt say ending it is the goal fucktard. Did you read what you fucking wrote?

Well reading and comprehension-challenged one, in your screwball lefty world curing poverty and preventing poverty doesn't mean ending poverty. Duly and hilariously noted by the class.

When does prevention ever mean the end of anything? Preventing is an attempt to stave off or avert. Did you know that? How can you cure something that isnt happening?

Maybe you should start using the words in the quotes and what they mean and stop translating the words to mean other things. Thats a start

You cure it, dumbfuck....and then you prevent it from happening again. This ain't rocket science, ya damn retard.

LOL....thought so idiot. Prevention doesnt mean it will never happen again. Learn what words mean ya dumbass

Johnson was the guy who said it could be cured and prevented, dumbfuck.

What he did not say was how long it would take. It was the start of a vision for a better country. By your logic the war on terror or cancer should be scrapped as failures as well.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I just want to repost this silly shit

He's asking you to give YOUR definition of poverty...seeing that the actual definition of poverty is not really seen in America save for homeless people and maybe some places in the Appalachians.

There is no "MY DEFINITION" there is only THE definition. And if this ballsack doesnt know it, I'm not his teacher.

Where is there 'poverty' in America besides homeless people and some parts of the Appalachians?

Those two places you just named for starters. If this isnt a quiz how about you come with some facts and stop with this goofy shit?

So the OP admits a roof over your head and 3 meals a day with full access to healthcare is poverty in America.

No wonder you think there is no poverty. Your definition of homeless is having a home

Weatherman thinks being homeless means having a home

 

[Hutch Starskey]

By that measure there isnt any violence in America

You get dumber by the nanosecond.

There is no rape in America because there is more rape other places! Huurr Duurrrr

OK Einstein, enough of your moronic analogies. Define poverty.

Why? You dont have google or is this an English Quiz?

He's asking you to give YOUR definition of poverty...seeing that the actual definition of poverty is not really seen in America save for homeless people and maybe some places in the Appalachians.

Why is it you people never find the answers you seek rather than bloviate in endless circles?
This is the operational definition of poverty in America.

How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty
Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).


How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - U.S Census Bureau

 

[Markle]

In another thread on poverty republicans or conservatives kept saying that the war on poverty "hasnt worked".

When asked what they thought the goal of the war on poverty was many stated the usual "Liberals said..." followed by impossible things never said by anyone.

Of course if you believe the war on poverty was supposed to make everyone rich, I have bad news for you.

If you believed the war on poverty was supposed to end poor people existing, no wonder you think it "failed"

If you thought that the war on poverty meant everyone would live like Mr Burns from the Simpsons, I understand your frustration.

ClosedCaption foolishly posted, and I quote, "
"Why Do Republicans Pretend the War On Poverty was supposed to END POVERTY?"

Gosh, ClosedCaption, I am thrilled that you are so eager to point out again, what we have seen announced by this White House, that Progressives LIE. They do so intentionally, with no intention that what they say was ever intended to be truthful. The even call anyone who believes them STUPID. They are proud to do so.

As my good friend, ClosedCaption should know is that perhaps Democrats and Progressives PROMISED THAT THE WAR ON POVERTY WOULD END POVERTY. Gee, think that might have something to do with Republicans and Conservatives foolishly BELIEVING what you promised?

Go figure!

From one of your beloved, far left Progressive sources, NPR.
HISTORY
For LBJ, The War On Poverty Was Personal
January 8, 2014 3:31 AM ET

President Lyndon Johnson stood in the Capitol on Jan. 8, 1964, and, in his first State of the Union address, committed the nation to a war on poverty.

"We shall not rest until that war is won," Johnson said. "The richest nation on Earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it."

It was an effort that had been explored under President Kennedy, but it firmly — and quickly — took shape under Johnson.

Read more:
For LBJ, The War On Poverty Was Personal


Cute try, making a childish try to move the goal posts so Progressives can try to not look so inept?

Aren't you embarrassed to be so bold in lying about intentions of the War on Terror and the failed results.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In another thread on poverty republicans or conservatives kept saying that the war on poverty "hasnt worked".

When asked what they thought the goal of the war on poverty was many stated the usual "Liberals said..." followed by impossible things never said by anyone.

Of course if you believe the war on poverty was supposed to make everyone rich, I have bad news for you.

If you believed the war on poverty was supposed to end poor people existing, no wonder you think it "failed"

If you thought that the war on poverty meant everyone would live like Mr Burns from the Simpsons, I understand your frustration.

ClosedCaption foolishly posted, and I quote, "
"Why Do Republicans Pretend the War On Poverty was supposed to END POVERTY?"

Gosh, ClosedCaption, I am thrilled that you are so eager to point out again, what we have seen announced by this White House, that Progressives LIE. They do so intentionally, with no intention that what they say was ever intended to be truthful. The even call anyone who believes them STUPID. They are proud to do so.

As my good friend, ClosedCaption should know is that perhaps Democrats and Progressives PROMISED THAT THE WAR ON POVERTY WOULD END POVERTY. Gee, think that might have something to do with Republicans and Conservatives foolishly BELIEVING what you promised?

Go figure!

From one of your beloved, far left Progressive sources, NPR.
HISTORY
For LBJ, The War On Poverty Was Personal
January 8, 2014 3:31 AM ET

President Lyndon Johnson stood in the Capitol on Jan. 8, 1964, and, in his first State of the Union address, committed the nation to a war on poverty.

"We shall not rest until that war is won," Johnson said. "The richest nation on Earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it."

It was an effort that had been explored under President Kennedy, but it firmly — and quickly — took shape under Johnson.

Read more:
For LBJ, The War On Poverty Was Personal


Cute try, making a childish try to move the goal posts so Progressives can try to not look so inept?

Aren't you embarrassed to be so bold in lying about intentions of the War on Terror and the failed results.

Is the war over yet?
To suggest it is failed suggests that every other ongoing concern is also failed. It's poor logic.

 

[Markle]

Republican rhetoric about the war on poverty isn't designed to present actual facts. It is to cherry pick the facts to present it in a poor light. They really don't care about whether it works or not, only if they can use some aspect of it to belittle the left.

Another LIE from my Progressive good friends. Shameful.

As we all know, it is our Progressive friends who steadfastly refuse to implement programs which can be monitored and measured. This is the prime reason why. They cannot stand the scrutiny of having their failed programs see the light of day. Instead, they want programs that cannot be measured but instead, they FEEL GOOD.

To Progrssives...NOTHING else matters.

 

[Markle]

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

I may not have asked the right question. Do you believe that the so called war on poverty was the BEST possible solution for the problems you believe it has helped ?

I dont believe there is a BEST of anything to be honest. I imagine there might be other plans that could've been better, thats always possible. But saying that somewhere something better exists doesnt mean that what you have is a failure. Thats a pretty low bar for failure.

I mean obviously killing all the poor people would also decrease poverty, but I don't think anyone would call that a good solution.

I don't believe there is a best for most situations either, but I do believe there are BETTER solutions. And the war on poverty has set a pretty damn low bar for actually helping people.

There might be better solutions but no one is presenting them for consideration

Another LIE from my friend ClosedCaption.

The Newt Gingrich and the Republicans forced former President Bill Clinton to sign, after two vetos, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. It was a huge success. Then Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama, between the failed "stimulus" plan and then Obamacare the successful 1996 Welfare Reform Act was eliminated. Quietly and behind the scenes.