• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"War on Poverty"

What's the best indicator(s) of the success/failure of the "war on poverty"?


  • Total voters
    53
Not that long ago a very poor person might lack sufficient food for adequate nutrition, might die from lack of medical care, might live in a dangerous tenement, tent or shack without heat and insulation and children had to miss school and go to work. Now, even the poorest can obtain a fairly place to live, obtain sufficient food, get medical care and children don't miss school due to a need to work to support their family. That is success.

The homeless are still in a terrible situation, but that is largely a failure to adequately address their mental health and/or substance abuse problems, not because there aren't resources for them. The problem for the homeless is that they mentally and practically lack the ability to obtain what they need to improve their situation.

Its not success when it leaves people unskilled and unwilling to take care of themselves, that isn't compassionate. And as far as the homeless its complicated but NOT because of lack of opportunity or programs. Short of FORCING them to do what the govt wants, that problem is going nowhere.
 
War on poverty?


Sounds like a justification for massive government spending...just throw money at the problem and hope it goes away.

News flash...it does not work.

Unless unsustainable, gigantic government debt and tens of millions of people sitting on their rumps getting welfare checks from the government is one's idea of the system working.

Indeed, its about forcible redistribution of wealth and a dependent voter base for a particular political party. Its like eliminating pain in the world by making everyone a heroin addict.
 
Dammit I'm on my iPad and screwed up. I meant to choose the number of people answer and I fat fingered answer number one about the money!
 
That's a feeling that seems to be prevalent in the US right now for indigenous reasons and because the massive improvement in the circumstances of the many has meant a relative reduction in the status and wealth of the US and the portion of its populous that competes most directly with the emerging.

If you're saying the middle class is shrinking as a result of outsourcing and paying more for gov't spending, then I'd agree.


Its actually a war on self sufficiency and for wealth redistribution.

Your one dimensional political ideology never will allow you to see that a small percentage has the most control over wealth than the rest. And they haven't done anything all that wrong, except let their desire to grow the population for the sake of more wealth, blind them to the eventual outcome.
 
If you're saying the middle class is shrinking as a result of outsourcing and paying more for gov't spending, then I'd agree.




Your one dimensional political ideology never will allow you to see that a small percentage has the most control over wealth than the rest. And they haven't done anything all that wrong, except let their desire to grow the population for the sake of more wealth, blind them to the eventual outcome.

Your myths about the wealthy dont change the fact that the war on poverty has demonstrably failed-income, quality of life, etc has continued to improve for the poor, but the numbers of poor and the poverty RATE have not changed in decades. The war on poverty has failed-and there are no improved outcomes as a result. Lets stop supporting failure, with silly rhetoric.

Decline in welfare benefits highlights decreased support in government for War on Poverty initiatives 1962–2006 (in 2006 dollars).[6]
Welfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif

War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poverty was falling at 1% a year on its own until the "wae on poverty" and since its held steady. Its a sham.
poverty-trends-1959-2010jpg-9840e8fac5c81968.jpg

b2575_chart2600px.ashx

30 Million in Poverty Aren't as Poor as You Think, Says Heritage Foundation - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic
Criticisms of welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Your myths about the wealthy dont change the fact that the war on poverty has demonstrably failed-income, quality of life, etc has continued to improve for the poor, but the numbers of poor and the poverty RATE have not changed in decades. The war on poverty has failed-and there are no improved outcomes as a result. Lets stop supporting failure, with silly rhetoric.


Poverty was falling at 1% a year on its own until the "wae on poverty" and since its held steady. Its a sham.
poverty-trends-1959-2010jpg-9840e8fac5c81968.jpg

b2575_chart2600px.ashx

30 Million in Poverty Aren't as Poor as You Think, Says Heritage Foundation - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic
Criticisms of welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're so blinded by your own ideological rhetoric that you failed to see how you're framing the situation improperly, and I didn't deny any of your stats.

There is no particular "War on Poverty", and like Cephus stated it's a Media coined phrase or problem. There's a problem with a small percentage of the ultra wealthy and political leadership trying to continually grow the economy out of it's problems, which isn't a sustainable path anymore. A new model for social prosperity needs to be designed and adopted that doesn't cause Wars and stresses on our environment.
 
You're so blinded by your own ideological rhetoric that you failed to see how you're framing the situation improperly, and I didn't deny any of your stats.

There is no particular "War on Poverty", and like Cephus stated it's a Media coined phrase or problem. There's a problem with a small percentage of the ultra wealthy and political leadership trying to continually grow the economy out of it's problems, which isn't a sustainable path anymore. A new model for social prosperity needs to be designed and adopted that doesn't cause Wars and stresses on our environment.

There is indeed a war on poverty-the laws put in place by the democrat party to purchase votes are still on the books, and have failed to acheive its stated goals. Forcing those of us who actually work to subsidize those who dont improves neither the situation for those poor, nor does it do anything but facilitate resentment by those of us who actually made responsible decisions and actually get up each day to work. The left are a bunch of poverty pimps, keeping the poor on the liberal vote plantation. There is no excuse for the outcomes of this failed war-which is actually worse than the war on drugs.
 
You're so blinded by your own ideological rhetoric that you failed to see how you're framing the situation improperly, and I didn't deny any of your stats.

There is no particular "War on Poverty", and like Cephus stated it's a Media coined phrase or problem. There's a problem with a small percentage of the ultra wealthy and political leadership trying to continually grow the economy out of it's problems, which isn't a sustainable path anymore. A new model for social prosperity needs to be designed and adopted that doesn't cause Wars and stresses on our environment.

Growing the economy isn't sustainable? If I'm reading that right, that's a baffling statement.
 
(1) If you're saying the middle class is shrinking as a result of outsourcing and paying more for gov't spending, then I'd agree.

(2) Your one dimensional political ideology never will allow you to see that a small percentage has the most control over wealth than the rest. And they haven't done anything all that wrong, except let their desire to grow the population for the sake of more wealth, blind them to the eventual outcome.


(1) It is the people that chose the cheap t-shirts over the expensive ones made inthe USA or the foreign car for price or price, as the case may be.

(2) Actually, I have thought about the different issues involving the Gini coefficient, redistribution, global allocation processes and all that a number of times and relatively thoroughly. And it might be that the people lacking the formal education to understand what happened get angry, when the development has been globally so positive. It is a pity, though, that the USA has been so far in the lead and the main carrier of the load, while their competitors gained relatively from the closing wealth gap.
 
There is indeed a war on poverty-the laws put in place by the democrat party to purchase votes are still on the books, and have failed to acheive its stated goals. Forcing those of us who actually work to subsidize those who dont improves neither the situation for those poor, nor does it do anything but facilitate resentment by those of us who actually made responsible decisions and actually get up each day to work. The left are a bunch of poverty pimps, keeping the poor on the liberal vote plantation. There is no excuse for the outcomes of this failed war-which is actually worse than the war on drugs.


If the poor are so lazy, then why are so many Chinese and Indians making products? They're growing out of poverty.


Growing the economy isn't sustainable? If I'm reading that right, that's a baffling statement.


The FED can't pump money into the stock market indefinitely and the gov't can't run the debt up to the stars. Something has got to give. We've become a service oriented country and don't have a large production force anymore, especially with technology taking more and more jobs.

Also, humanity is growing the population and raising their standard of living beyond what the planet's environment can ultimately sustain. The southern border problem (masses of poor), European Austerity, Middle East, Russia, Asian threats are all about struggling for economic resources. Now we've got a cauldron of incurable diseases cropping up from intercontinental travel.
 
(1) It is the people that chose the cheap t-shirts over the expensive ones made inthe USA or the foreign car for price or price, as the case may be.

(2) Actually, I have thought about the different issues involving the Gini coefficient, redistribution, global allocation processes and all that a number of times and relatively thoroughly. And it might be that the people lacking the formal education to understand what happened get angry, when the development has been globally so positive. It is a pity, though, that the USA has been so far in the lead and the main carrier of the load, while their competitors gained relatively from the closing wealth gap.


I agree we've done much better than the Media or population in general realizes, a lot of that is due to their inability to appreciate how much less there was in the past. But we had some qualities (depth, physical activity) the current generations don't have, as a result of less focus on the superficial love of materialism and distraction of technology.
 
If the poor are so lazy, then why are so many Chinese and Indians making products? They're growing out of poverty.





The FED can't pump money into the stock market indefinitely and the gov't can't run the debt up to the stars. Something has got to give. We've become a service oriented country and don't have a large production force anymore, especially with technology taking more and more jobs.

Also, humanity is growing the population and raising their standard of living beyond what the planet's environment can ultimately sustain. The southern border problem (masses of poor), European Austerity, Middle East, Russia, Asian threats are all about struggling for economic resources. Now we've got a cauldron of incurable diseases cropping up from intercontinental travel.

I agree with your comments about the Fed and Government spending.

As to humanity, we've barely scratched the surface on what is, and will become, available to us. The challenges faced by struggling nations aren't the result of population, but the result of poor choices in the face of reality. They will self correct, because that is how nature works. Humans have survived plague and all sorts of other threats, and will do so into the eons that are to come.
 
If the poor are so lazy, then why are so many Chinese and Indians making products? They're growing out of poverty.

What do the Chinese and Indians have to do with the failed liberal war on poverty? The entire premise of marxism was to end the poverty of the working class, how'd that work out?

You aren't hearing what Im saying-your ideology conceals reality. You are hearing your discredited leftist dogma. The Chinese and Indians are making products because they have figured out that capitalist free market principles deliver people from poverty.

When you start with the fundamentally flawed assertion that equality of outcomes is the goal, you are dooming yourself to failure-that hasn't happened anywhere, ever-because thats not how life works.Decades of discredited marxist policies only brought them famine, and strife-the same conclusion that european marxists figured out a few decades before.


The FED can't pump money into the stock market indefinitely and the gov't can't run the debt up to the stars. Something has got to give. We've become a service oriented country and don't have a large production force anymore, especially with technology taking more and more jobs.

Thats nice but again it has nothing to do with the war on poverty-which was started around the same time we moved off the silver standard. In any case, a free market should be allowed to adapt, rather than using govt handouts to achieve the screwed up liberal notion of fairness.

Also, humanity is growing the population and raising their standard of living beyond what the planet's environment can ultimately sustain. The southern border problem (masses of poor), European Austerity, Middle East, Russia, Asian threats are all about struggling for economic resources. Now we've got a cauldron of incurable diseases cropping up from intercontinental travel.

What/Who is "humanity" in this context? This is about different groups of people making different choices which logically lead to different outcomes-some work, some dont. This isn't about compassion-if it was you wouldn't support it or our failed govt schools. This is the silly amorphous crap the left likes to hide behind. Whats humane about millions of unskilled poor dependent on welfare. Whats humane about forcibly taking from some to buy the votes of others? What works? Capitalism.

What does not work? Handouts to keep people subservient and dependent. Whats the most f'd up is you CLAIM to want to help the poor, but when shown incontrovertible evidence that freebies dont help you stick to your marxist guns. Thats because helping the poor is only a pretext-a pretext to control and partisan ideology. If it wan't you'd be leading the charge to implement what works-but you wont. Drop the appeals to emotion-this is too important to pretend.
 
Paul Ryan has lived off the government TEAt his entire life.
None of your diversions to Obama and Hillary will change that FACT .
Paul Ryans first job was at McDonalds, and he worked for a construction company.

Tell us about Obama and Hillary's jobs. :2wave:
 
Paul Ryan has lived off the government TEAt his entire life.
None of your diversions to Obama and Hillary will change that FACT .

Actually, the conversation is about the relative success/failure of the war on poverty and how to evaluate that. Talking about Ryan attending elementary school and walking on sidewalks to get there and breathing air provided by the US government are the distractions.
 
I agree with your comments about the Fed and Government spending.

As to humanity, we've barely scratched the surface on what is, and will become, available to us. The challenges faced by struggling nations aren't the result of population, but the result of poor choices in the face of reality. They will self correct, because that is how nature works. Humans have survived plague and all sorts of other threats, and will do so into the eons that are to come.

I guarantee the problems with energy, food, fresh water, real estate and other resources, including pollution, dwindling animal species and rain forests are all due to population. I do believe we'll be forced back into a natural balance thru a retraction, and that's going to happen before we expand into a far greater number. The pressures from our crumbling systems and environmental stresses are already showing.



What do the Chinese and Indians have to do with the failed liberal war on poverty? The entire premise of marxism was to end the poverty of the working class, how'd that work out?

You aren't hearing what Im saying-your ideology conceals reality. You are hearing your discredited leftist dogma. The Chinese and Indians are making products because they have figured out that capitalist free market principles deliver people from poverty.

When you start with the fundamentally flawed assertion that equality of outcomes is the goal, you are dooming yourself to failure-that hasn't happened anywhere, ever-because thats not how life works.Decades of discredited marxist policies only brought them famine, and strife-the same conclusion that european marxists figured out a few decades before.




Thats nice but again it has nothing to do with the war on poverty-which was started around the same time we moved off the silver standard. In any case, a free market should be allowed to adapt, rather than using govt handouts to achieve the screwed up liberal notion of fairness.



What/Who is "humanity" in this context? This is about different groups of people making different choices which logically lead to different outcomes-some work, some dont. This isn't about compassion-if it was you wouldn't support it or our failed govt schools. This is the silly amorphous crap the left likes to hide behind. Whats humane about millions of unskilled poor dependent on welfare. Whats humane about forcibly taking from some to buy the votes of others? What works? Capitalism.

What does not work? Handouts to keep people subservient and dependent. Whats the most f'd up is you CLAIM to want to help the poor, but when shown incontrovertible evidence that freebies dont help you stick to your marxist guns. Thats because helping the poor is only a pretext-a pretext to control and partisan ideology. If it wan't you'd be leading the charge to implement what works-but you wont. Drop the appeals to emotion-this is too important to pretend.


Denying the truth doesn't make it untrue. You're emotionally thrashing about in the minutia, which gets you nowhere towards seeing the problem in a way that it can be solved. All you want to do is use the issues to point fingers and label blame for an ego boost, rather than actually come up with any realistic solutions.
 
Which part because, judging by that Wiki article, Paul Ryan has never held a non-political job in his life. He's never been employed in the private sector. He's a lifetime public teat-sucker.

I really do not think that is a good qualification. I would not automatically exclude professional politicians from the top job. But I would mistrust them and certainly want to examine why such inexperience should not be dangerous.
 
Which part because, judging by that Wiki article, Paul Ryan has never held a non-political job in his life. He's never been employed in the private sector. He's a lifetime public teat-sucker.

Judging by your comment, you didn't read the Wiki article. Im not here to spoon feed you.
 
I was listening to some talk show the other day, Hannity I think and he had Paul Ryan as a guest. They were speaking about the war on poverty and talking about how its success is measured. I thought that would make an interesting poll. What would be the best indicators of success (or failure)? I'll make it multiple choice.


Working on the poll, options will be;

1) By money allocated for social programs, e.g. the more the better
2) By helping the most people possible live more comfortably regardless of their income or lack of it (I may need to shorten this one).
3) By how many people are actually able to get out of poverty
4) Other

The second biggest problem with our anti-poverty programs is as far as I can tell they are not focused on helping people reach their potential but rather they make life livable for not trying.
 
Judging by your comment, you didn't read the Wiki article. Im not here to spoon feed you.

Ah, so you can't find a non-political job he's held either. Gotcha.
 
Ah, so you can't find a non-political job he's held either. Gotcha.

I went so far as to mention them by name and post a link here. That required me reading 5 sentences before hand.
There a plenty of things I dont like about Ryan, especially on immigration but he has indeed held jobs.
 
Its not success when it leaves people unskilled and unwilling to take care of themselves, that isn't compassionate. And as far as the homeless its complicated but NOT because of lack of opportunity or programs. Short of FORCING them to do what the govt wants, that problem is going nowhere.

Its not a complete success, but it is a success because it alleviated a lot of suffering and lost potential. Many of the beneficiaries are children, seniors and the disabled who do not necessarily have a responsibility or ability to be self sufficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom