• 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
Hmmm, you seem familiar to me.
Yeah; so. Who are you this time?

Oh, and total eye roll at the "watering the entire garden" nonsense.

Ga'head, roll your eyes. If 'ya can't argue credibly, then of course :roll:
 
Yeah; so. Who are you this time?

I am who I've always been.


Ga'head, roll your eyes. If 'ya can't argue credibly, then of course :roll:

As platitudes go, it's not even a good one of those. Who, exactly, is controlling the water hose? From what you're saying, that's who you should want to be.
 
Liberals aren't interested in getting people out of poverty, that would only cost them votes. They want to keep the poor in the poor house and buy their votes with government freebies. Surely everyone realizes that.

Blast. I thought we were more subtle than that.
 
Blast. I thought we were more subtle than that.

It was the "Honk if you've kept someone in poverty for the good of the party" bumper stickers you all have.
 
`
Surely you jest?

The war on poverty has failed by any objective measure-there is nothing compassionate about robbing people of their initiative.

For the same reasons that foreign aid does not help poor nations but rather facilitates corruption and preventing nations from developing the infrastructure and policies that actually DO deliver nations from poverty.

There is no better vehicle for this than capitalism-and the only creatures in existence who have all their needs provided for are captive animals. Everyone else works for themselves-which is also where we happen to work hardest.

In the US, the war on poverty is merely a system to force the poor to vote for dependency on the Democrat party. This is why we see such a desire to import poor immigrants, in addition to the forced contributions from union members to said party. The democrat party can't exist without these people dependant on them-and they know it.
 
Last edited:
Two indicators : crime and suicides , also, there is the drop-out rate at our high schools.
Other was the vote ..
 
Your #2 seems antithetical to a war on poverty, since that would include helping the mega wealthy live more comfortably. I also don't believe #1 is the best measure, because $ doesn't itself translate into escaping poverty.

Back in HS, i worked at a gas station in a rather white trash county. I frequently saw adults come in with their little kids, looking like they shower once a month, and the parent uses food stamps and then buys multiple packs of cigs with cash. A depressing scene that gives the impression more social programs alone only = more booze/cigs, not the end of poverty.

#3 is the most direct indicator, but they have to be able to stay out of poverty and achieve some degree of self-sufficiency. Simply handing the adult i mentioned a huge bag of govt cash isn't success.
 
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

well the real purpose was not a poll answer-how many people become reliable democrat party voters as a result and based on that it is a success to those who instigated this nonsense

but since the proper answer is C/3, the answer is a complete failure
 
Two indicators : crime and suicides , also, there is the drop-out rate at our high schools.

a lot of that can be due to mental illness, but yeah, if crime and suicide go up, better believe it's owing to increase in desperate poverty
 
Liberals aren't interested in getting people out of poverty, that would only cost them votes. They want to keep the poor in the poor house and buy their votes with government freebies. Surely everyone realizes that.
This was supposed to be an adult conservation ....I think poorly of such childish remarks .
 
This was supposed to be an adult conservation ....I think poorly of such childish remarks .

Its an error to judge policies based on intent, rather than the effects. The results of the failed "war on poverty" are abysmal, and yet the same people who cry about the "war on drugs" cant seem to see how they appear on this "war".
 
a lot of that can be due to mental illness, but yeah, if crime and suicide go up, better believe it's owing to increase in desperate poverty

Indeed but poverty is not an insurmountable challenge. If one can graduate from high school (a requisite for basic skills, and hiring), get married (two income earners), and hold a full time job (demonstrating reliability) at least one year-they will no longer be poor.

As is-the biggest predictor of poverty is single parenting-which condemns most children to a future of poverty and diminished outcomes.

These objective truths are too important to ignore.
 
Liberals aren't interested in getting people out of poverty, that would only cost them votes. They want to keep the poor in the poor house and buy their votes with government freebies. Surely everyone realizes that.

If only that did work. If people rise out of poverty they might be a tad grateful to their helpers. They might come to embrace socialism full stop. But the poor are kept in their place because there are very few in power who actually want to see this end. Why? Because they're bought off by their corporate buddies, who only want to exploit the bottom 99%.

As this likely includes you, it's rather amazing you don't realize you're enabling your oppressors with this uber compassionate "let them starve" mantra. Guess what, *many* full time workers are poor and barely afford to get by.
 
Its an error to judge policies based on intent, rather than the effects. The results of the failed "war on poverty" are abysmal, and yet the same people who cry about the "war on drugs" cant seem to see how they appear on this "war".

So what do you propose, to give up and watch the whole country collapse into 3rd world detroit?

These are complex issues where one can disagree with how it's being handled. Opposition to the drug "war" is largely ideological; it's simply no one's business what i put into my body. It's inherently a failure, even if it did lead to less drug use.
 
Indeed but poverty is not an insurmountable challenge. If one can graduate from high school (a requisite for basic skills, and hiring), get married (two income earners), and hold a full time job (demonstrating reliability) at least one year-they will no longer be poor.

As is-the biggest predictor of poverty is single parenting-which condemns most children to a future of poverty and diminished outcomes.

These objective truths are too important to ignore.

So now everyone has to marry just to escape poverty. Perhaps that's simply not a sacrifice they're willing to make, and for you to instruct others how to live...

Cause full time minimum wage, which is about all high school can guarantee, is $15392/year. That's barely above the poverty level. If you ask me, reform is most needed for the working poor. People aren't going to put up with this forever, not while their corporate barons are exploiting them more and more - about 14 fold since 1960s (source: EPI)
 
I seem to remember when President Reagan said, " The federal government declared war on poverty and poverty won."

In layman terms, liberals/progressives won when it comes to keeping Americans living in poverty.
It's the only platform the Democrat Party has, fighting poverty.
 
Reagan got his and O'Neill got his--I don't call that working together.
I call it selling out the country and the definite beginning of our $18 trillion TAD--as Cheney's words will always remind us .
 
Paul Ryan was on social programs from a young age all the way through college.
Then he went to work for Jack Kemp and has never known anything but living off the public dole.
I think the goal of getting people off poverty is a good one and one that's worth pursuing.
Of course, I'd like to see "welfare to work" programs. Also, for those who are legitimately able, I think work should be a requirement.
I think welfare should be used to subsidize those who are working, not pay people more to not work.
Try all the sports socialism with new stadiums and corporate socialism and "tax-cuts-to-the-rich" socialism .
 
Reagan got his and O'Neill got his--I don't call that working together.
I call it selling out the country and the definite beginning of our $18 trillion TAD--as Cheney's words will always remind us .

TAD ? As in Temporary Attached Duty ?
Navy/Marine acronym
 
Paul Ryan was on social programs from a young age all the way through college.
Then he went to work for Jack Kemp and has never known anything but living off the public dole.

You mean like elementary school and stuff?

Try all the sports socialism with new stadiums and corporate socialism and "tax-cuts-to-the-rich" socialism .

So, is the point here that we should not even inquire or concern ourselves with the effectiveness of so called the War on Poverty?
 
Total Accumulated Debt--a phenomenon not known until Reagan's time--
though to be fair and it's difficult--O'Neill deserves just as much of my vitriol .
TAD ? As in Temporary Attached Duty ?
Navy/Marine acronym
 
You mean like elementary school and stuff?
I mean grade school through college--but you knew that.
So, is the point here that we should not even inquire or concern ourselves with the effectiveness of so called the War on Poverty?
The point is you forget the conservative side of the ledger--as usual .
 
So what do you propose, to give up and watch the whole country collapse into 3rd world detroit?

These are complex issues where one can disagree with how it's being handled. Opposition to the drug "war" is largely ideological; it's simply no one's business what i put into my body. It's inherently a failure, even if it did lead to less drug use.

If you find yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. We need to gradually remove the incentives that created this mess. Stop penalizing people for working (where income drops and expenses like daycare rise), penalize people for being married (with loss of entitlements), etc. The incentives should be FOR working, and supporting ones self-the alternative is clearly ruin. Breaking up the family structure only hurts people-and therefore society. The govt should be nobodies husband.

As is, entitlements are the single biggest expense in our nation, and they are only getting worse. Social security as it exists will last just long enough for the IGM boomers, if people conservatively invested that money they would be much better off, in fact it would pay for things like health savings accounts, etc.

An intrusive one-size-fits-all top-down govt is not the best we can do.
 
So now everyone has to marry just to escape poverty. Perhaps that's simply not a sacrifice they're willing to make, and for you to instruct others how to live...

Cause full time minimum wage, which is about all high school can guarantee, is $15392/year. That's barely above the poverty level. If you ask me, reform is most needed for the working poor. People aren't going to put up with this forever, not while their corporate barons are exploiting them more and more - about 14 fold since 1960s (source: EPI)

Marriage (or an analog by another name if you prefer), meaning a male and female adult in the home means two incomes, more flexibility, less negative impacts to children, and a better life. Save me the red herrings, I am speaking generally. A single parent household (over 70% in many demos), lack of even basic education (LA county has a 30% HS graduation rate) , and the inability to retain a job do not lead to success. Lets stop pretending and being PC-this is too important to ignore.

Im not instructing anybody-Im recognizing the facts of life and stating this isn't an insurmountable goal.

-People who can't speak english here are going to have an exceedingly difficult time succeeding. Theres a reason first generation immigrants who assimilate do so well here in the US, in fact even better than their children who grow up in the US.

Most people who work and fall under the poverty level DONT WORK FULL TIME HOURS.

Two income earners trump one.

Education and HS graduation trump being a drop out.

Working and being just above the poverty level is preferable to being under the poverty level, and getting just enough handouts to keep one on the democrat vote plantation.

People need to obtain the skills and education needed to get others to pay them money-money that they will be worth. Smoking weed and playing xbox is no substitute.

There is no better delivery vehicle from poverty than capitalism. Your marxist class struggle BS has demonstrably failed, time and time again-all over the world, and in various cultures, for the last century.

Seeking out the behaviors that lead to success and emulating them is smart-and certainly preferable to defending mediocrity and bitterly lamenting others-success isnt down that road.

If people aren't willing to acknowledge the circumstances REQUIRED to be successful, and instead expect a lifetime of handouts-they have already failed. We used to know this, in fact it was obvious. Only the Pax Americana could give us such entitled and ignorant assumptions. These facts-are stubborn-but true nevertheless.
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember when President Reagan said, " The federal government declared war on poverty and poverty won."

In layman terms, liberals/progressives won when it comes to keeping Americans living in poverty.
It's the only platform the Democrat Party has, fighting poverty.

They have also succeeded in importing new waves of dependent democrat voters. They define success as they number of people dependent on govt. :doh

Bear-Necessities.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom