Im a right leaning American, yes.
Im a right leaning American, no.
Im a left leaning American, yes.
Im a left leaning American, no.
Im a not American, yes.
Im a not American, no.
This is why the Democrats lost:
From shaming to semi-stalking, Democrats flood inboxes for last-minute campaign cash - The Washington Post“Absolute meltdown.”
“Kiss any hope goodbye.
“We’re done. Go home. Give up.”
The lyrics to a moody ballad? A depressing Facebook page? No, these are subject lines from a series of frantic e-mail messages sent to Democratic donors in recent days.
Wow, right leaning members voted yes and left leaning members voted no. Who could have seen that coming?
"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown
Seems I recall a mere six years ago this same question being asked about conservatism. Republicans got the biggest electoral drubbing in recent memory when Obama was elected. But obviously, conservatism wasn't dead, and it's unlikely that liberalism is dead now.
Ah, so your examples that poverty has been a failure rely on independent examples of one guy and... the heritage foundation? Okay, well let's see a few claims by the heritage foundation which are simply laughable:War on Poverty at 50: How to Fight Poverty -- and Win
Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost - WSJ
And lastly, we keep hearing of stories like this which surely is disconcerting.
Iyanla Vanzant To A Father Of 34 Children: Why Didn't You Get A Vasectomy? (VIDEO)
Desmond Hatchett: Man With 30 Kids Requests Child-Support Break
Man who fathered 30 kids with 11 different women says he needs a break - from child support | Daily Mail Online
And it's these 'cultural values' that I'm supposed to support and be glad doing so?
Alright, so... the average America doesn't fit any global indicator of poverty, however the war on poverty has failed.. let's move on...Not even government, though, can spend $9,000 per recipient a year and have no impact on living standards. And it shows: Current poverty has little resemblance to poverty 50 years ago. According to a variety of government sources, including census data and surveys by federal agencies, the typical American living below the poverty level in 2013 lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair, equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. His home is larger than the home of the average nonpoor French, German or English man. He has a car, multiple color TVs and a DVD player. More than half the poor have computers and a third have wide, flat-screen TVs. The overwhelming majority of poor Americans are not undernourished and did not suffer from hunger for even one day of the previous year.
Ah okay... well now we're getting somewhere, so opportunity has declined. Oh alright... well what metric do they use to determine whether opportunity has declined? Let's see:Do higher living standards for the poor mean that the war on poverty has succeeded? No. To judge the effort, consider LBJ's original aim. He sought to give poor Americans "opportunity not doles," planning to shrink welfare dependence not expand it. In his vision, the war on poverty would strengthen poor Americans' capacity to support themselves, transforming "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." It would attack not just the symptoms of poverty but, more important, remove the causes.
So... in short... the war on poverty has failed because more people are getting divorced and some people are poor. Oh... okay well... that's an odd way to define why it has failed. I mean, it's almost as if the article makes an obvious attempt to ignore that....According to the Heritage Foundation's analysis, children raised in the growing number of single-parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty than children reared by married parents of the same education level. Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to suffer from a broad array of social and behavioral problems. The consequences continue into adulthood: Children raised by single parents are three times more likely to end up in jail and 50% more likely to be poor as adults.
- American kids don't have to work in order to eat,
- American kids don't have to pitch in to pay the family's rent
- Hunger and housing have been completely disassociated with poverty
- Minorities have substantially higher education rates
- Access to education for all is an application away
- Access to healthcare is not based on ability to pay
- Real poverty levels for blacks have dropped from 87% to 20-25%
.... well you get it. Is that honestly what you based your argument that less people getting married/more people get divorced has led to move poverty? That people getting divorced and single parents have created more poverty and less opportunity? Because that's a pretty easy statement to debunk. Hell, your article's complete avoidance of any reference to general poverty makes it pretty obvious that it's a ridiculous argument to begin with. People aren't poorer and even the poor aren't really poor by any standard of the word. Hell, even opportunity hasn't declined because people have access to things whose lack of would have killed them in the past. So with that said, what other non-arguments do you have for why the liberal programs of the past 50 years have failed?
Last edited by Hatuey; 11-09-14 at 11:38 AM.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK