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

[Rustic]

The federal government cannot improve standard of living or education… they have no credibility.

 

[BULLDOG]

So after billions of tax payer funds spent on the war against poverty it is now disclosed that the intent wasn't to end poverty? Apparently some here never bothered to read the speeches nor text of the liberals beating their chest declaring all we need is just a little more public funding and the results will come. Just another very expensive example of a liberal program based on some cock and bull theory designed to fail.

Nobody ever said poverty would be completely eliminated. Idiot.

 

[blackhawk]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

 

[BULLDOG]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

So you think the War On Drugs was intended to prevent any drug use ever in the US?

 

[blackhawk]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

So you think the War On Drugs was intended to prevent any drug use ever in the US?

Im sure in the mind of who ever orginally came up with that phrase that was the idea just as I'm sure who ever orginally came with phrase war on poverty thought poverty could really be elminated which just goes to show the sillinesses of the war on insert name here stuff.

 

[BULLDOG]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

So you think the War On Drugs was intended to prevent any drug use ever in the US?

Im sure in the mind of who ever orginally came up with that phrase that was the idea just as I'm sure who ever orginally came with phrase war on poverty thought poverty could really be elminated which just goes to show the sillinesses of the war on insert name here stuff.

Are you sure that was what was in their minds? I would be interested in anything said or done to make you believe that.

 

[blackhawk]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

So you think the War On Drugs was intended to prevent any drug use ever in the US?

Im sure in the mind of who ever orginally came up with that phrase that was the idea just as I'm sure who ever orginally came with phrase war on poverty thought poverty could really be elminated which just goes to show the sillinesses of the war on insert name here stuff.

Are you sure that was what was in their minds? I would be interested in anything said or done to make you believe that.

Yes I'm sure of that as I already explained when you declare war on something you do so with the intent of defeating eliminating it. Unless you think there is another goal for declaring war on something.

 

[BULLDOG]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

So you think the War On Drugs was intended to prevent any drug use ever in the US?

Im sure in the mind of who ever orginally came up with that phrase that was the idea just as I'm sure who ever orginally came with phrase war on poverty thought poverty could really be elminated which just goes to show the sillinesses of the war on insert name here stuff.

Are you sure that was what was in their minds? I would be interested in anything said or done to make you believe that.

Yes I'm sure of that as I already explained when you declare war on something you do so with the intent of defeating eliminating it. Unless you think there is another goal for declaring war on something.

You explained that is how you interpret that phrase. What makes you believe the people that coined the phrase meant it the same way? This thread shows you that many don't share your interpretation of that phrase. Other than your own personal belief, do you have anything said or done by the people starting those programs to back up your belief? Anything to show they expected to solve those problems completely, and forever?

 

[rightwinger]

When you declare war on something poverty, drugs whatever the goal is to defeat whatever it is your fighting if that is not your goal or that goal is not realistic or possible then don't use the term declare war on.

Most wars do not end in total victory for one side or the other

 

[rdean]

The people who suffer the most are those in states like West Virginia and Kentucky where a fifth to a quarter of the people live in poverty. And the states are 91 and 96% white so Republicans can't blame it on minorities. But they vote race. And that's why the GOP has them in the pocket.

 

[WillowTree]

How much money have we spent on the War on Drugs.?
Police, legal system, prisons

Yet we still have drugs

How much money have we thrown at education? We still have really stupid people.

Republicans are conducting a war on education

Lies, liars, and rightwinger.

Which party wants to abolish......The Department of Education?

It's not the Democrats. Democrats want to keep pissing that money away.

 

[rightwinger]

How much money have we spent on the War on Drugs.?
Police, legal system, prisons

Yet we still have drugs

How much money have we thrown at education? We still have really stupid people.

Republicans are conducting a war on education

Lies, liars, and rightwinger.

Which party wants to abolish......The Department of Education?

It's not the Democrats. Democrats want to keep pissing that money away.

Education is wasted money?

 

[WillowTree]

How much money have we thrown at education? We still have really stupid people.

Republicans are conducting a war on education

Lies, liars, and rightwinger.

Which party wants to abolish......The Department of Education?

It's not the Democrats. Democrats want to keep pissing that money away.

Education is wasted money?

We do not need a dept of education. Let the state's manage education.

 

[WillowTree]

The people who suffer the most are those in states like West Virginia and Kentucky where a fifth to a quarter of the people live in poverty. And the states are 91 and 96% white so Republicans can't blame it on minorities. But they vote race. And that's why the GOP has them in the pocket.

US Poverty Rate By State

 

[bodecea]

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

To lift as many people up as possible to at least not look like the poorest parts of Africa or Bangledesh for starters.

 

[bodecea]

Republicans are conducting a war on education

Lies, liars, and rightwinger.

Which party wants to abolish......The Department of Education?

It's not the Democrats. Democrats want to keep pissing that money away.

Education is wasted money?

We do not need a dept of education. Let the state's manage education.

I can agree with that, but there are many con-servatives right now crying over the Dept of Ed not sending money to certain states. Do you really think states are willing to give up that money? I would like to see them say yes, but I'm sure that they would cry over lost money instead.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

To lift as many people up as possible to at least not look like the poorest parts of Africa or Bangledesh for starters.

^Insert generic mock to poster who does not deserve an actual response here

 

[bucs90]

Our "poor" aren't necessarily struggling. Our "poor" live a standard of life that 95% of the world would envy. Plenty of food. Free or subsidized housing. Free education. Heating & AC. A refrigerator. Color TV. Free Obamaphones. Healthcare. Probably a car. Relatively safe neighborhoods.

Our "poor" aren't "poor".

By global standards.....our "poor" are like someone who has to rent a 2 bedroom apartment in Beverly Hills and have a roommate or 2. Yeah....rough.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never claimed the war on poverty was meant to end poverty. Because that's not what it was set up for, it was set up to foster dependence on the government. And if you haven't been paying attention, that is all it has actually done.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If you're going to get all partisan on me, I'm going to bow out of the conversation my friend. I'm frankly tired and bored of that BS.

The liberal "solution" is to just throw more money at problems. Well, it's pretty clear by now that simply having the government throw money at problems will never solve anything, and the Dems knows that just as well as I do, and yet they continue to do so because they really don't care to solve the problem.

If liberals actually cared about helping poor people they would be doing things like educating people not to have kids they can't afford, or not to be out buying IPhones and flat screen TVs when they need food stamps to eat , and they would be encouraging them to learn new trades, move if they need to to better themselves. Anything other than just sending them a direct deposit and telling them that they can't help their own situation AT ALL.

I agree, if the War on Poverty included anything that stated "throw money at a problem" I would also disagree. But thats a pretty simple minded characterization of what the legislation does.

Name three things that have came out of the war on poverty that involve more than simply throwing money at a problem.

Nothing I say will ever stop you from being able to characterize something the way you want. For example: If I say brussell sprouts are nasty I cant say "Name 3 reasons why Brusell Sprouts are not nasty."

Thats just goofy

Or you simply don't want to answer the question because you know the answer.

Let me give an example.

Are you a parent?

Yes

Do you just give your child an allowance, or do you ask them to perform chores for that money?

Both actually

I will almost guarantee they do some form of chores in exchange for money? Why? Because we instinctively know that children who EARN their money are far more judicious with it than if they are just given money. But do we do the same thing with welfare? Nope, just show up and ask for money, if you qualify (and who doesn't) it's yours for the taking.

A lot of people dont qualify. Most of the people on welfare are working. Thats not just in my brain, thats a fact. I dont typically use the people who game the system as being indicative of everyone on welfare

Why don't liberals ever suggest things like "instead of just giving people welfare, why don't local cities hire them at $10 an hour to do clean up and such that all local communities need?"

Thats a good suggestion. Why hasnt ANYONE suggested that? Not just liberals. ANYONE? And I dont mean some guy says it on a MB or some opinion piece I'm talking legislation.

Well the answer is obvious, people on welfare don't WANT to work (and to be clear about the obvious yes I"m stereotyping but stereotypes exist for a reason) and Dems know they would lose their votes if they ever suggested something as dasterdly as "you must work to receive welfare"

First no one WANTS to work for a living if given the choice. That isnt exclusive to any group. Also see above, most people on welfare ARE WORKING! Their wages are just shit wages. Thanks Walmart

That's the god damned truth of the matter. We have infrastructure falling the fuck apart and we're paying people to sit on their asses at home.

Again, MOST PEOPLE ON WELFARE ARE WORKING!

Same exact situation with drug testing. NONE of you who oppose drug testing welfare recipients would support your own adult child if they sat in your basement all day long smoking pot and drinking beer while you paid for their housing and food. That's a fucking fact. Yet we as a nation are supposed to do it for the "poor"

I agree we should not support people who sit in a basement all day long smoking weed.

Poor people don't buy drugs and alcohol. Ever think about actually helping someone by telling them that?

Poor people dont buy drugs and alcohol? Wait until I tell that to Human History which strangely shows otherwise.

If Democrats cared fuck all about the poor they would help them to stop being poor. And doling out a few hundred bucks a month in welfare certainly isn't doing that.

Sounds like your solution to help them not be poor is for them to work (which they do) and to stop sitting in basements all day smoking weed which I agree.

We're sorta close on this topic

Oh, I agree we are pretty close on this topic. Here, I'll really blow your mind. I also support raising the minimum wage. Fairly significantly. I'd support an immediate increase to $10-11 an hour coupled with a direct tie to inflation . Of course neither party wants that either, because that would remove a wedge issue from the discussion.

I would also change the actual corporate income tax rate to ZERO. Let businesses redistribute that money in terms of expanding their businesses which would of course provide more jobs paying at least the new higher minimum.

And yes, of course poor people have always through history bought drugs/alcohol/gambling etc etc. That's why they are poor. And frankly, I don't care . If people want to be poor by choice, well that's their choice. I only care when they use taxpayer provided welfare to do so. That isn't right, and any reasonable person would agree with that. I mean if someone came to me and said "hey can you loan me $100 so I can buy groceries for my family" I'd probably be inclined to do so if they looked legit, if they showed up with a carton of cigarettes and a case of beer in their car and asked me to help them buy food? Not so much. Our government should shepard our resources in the same way.