• 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"?

  • How much money is allocated to social programs and welfare

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • Helping the most people possible live more comfortably regardless of their income or lack of it

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • By how many people are actually able to get out of poverty

    Votes: 44 83.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 17.0%

  • Death Star

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Total voters
    53
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,218
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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
 
X Factor said:
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
Click to expand...

If your goal is to substantially reduce or end poverty than the only logical conclusion is that you'd have to actually get people out of poverty. Throwing money at the problem or making the impoverished comfortable are counterproductive at best to the goal.
 
The only measure of success is in how many people can improve their own lives, and rise above poverty. If you are merely being funded, then you haven't fixed anything- just thrown money at it. The basic and underlying problem is still there.
 
X Factor said:
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
Click to expand...

I voted Death Star since Death Star-Tan is cute.

I do not think you can end poverty, nor should that even be a particular goal. I think the idea behind safety nets is to ensure a basic level of substance living to those who need it. I further think government programs that help people get off the safety net so they can get themselves out of poverty are good(in general and theory, some programs through poor design or implementation may be bad programs themselves). How do you measure the success? Not sure there is a good answer to that.
 
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.
 
Redress said:
I voted Death Star since Death Star-Tan is cute.

I do not think you can end poverty, nor should that even be a particular goal. I think the idea behind safety nets is to ensure a basic level of substance living to those who need it. I further think government programs that help people get off the safety net so they can get themselves out of poverty are good(in general and theory, some programs through poor design or implementation may be bad programs themselves). How do you measure the success? Not sure there is a good answer to that.
Click to expand...

Sure we can, at least for those people willing to actually get off their asses and work hard to improve their lot in life. Unfortunately, we've got 50 years of liberals telling people that they shouldn't have to work hard to get out of poverty, nor should they have to make good decisions in their lives. They just deserve stuff, just for waking up in the morning.
 
Cephus said:
Sure we can, at least for those people willing to actually get off their asses and work hard to improve their lot in life. Unfortunately, we've got 50 years of liberals telling people that they shouldn't have to work hard to get out of poverty, nor should they have to make good decisions in their lives. They just deserve stuff, just for waking up in the morning.
Click to expand...

So by your own words you are not measuring the effects of the programs, but the willingness of people. Thank you for agreeing with me.
 
Redress said:
So by your own words you are not measuring the effects of the programs, but the willingness of people. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

Those people who are not willing to get off their asses, we shouldn't give anything to. Let them starve to death. I don't agree with you at all. We need a social expectation that EVERYONE needs to be responsible and those who refuse, screw 'em.
 
X Factor said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm choosing # 4. We have to water the entire garden in this country. When we care for the garden - everything grows. We have no more jobs. We threw over the American dream for dividends. So what we wind up with is feeding a bunch of cattle that can't be milked and are no good for anything else. The Greeks referred to these people as nationalists. We did it, so bitching about the results is kind of - silly.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, to those on the that side of the political spectrum, the success of the “War on Poverty” is surely measured by how many votes it buys for their side from those who have been trapped into endless dependence on government handouts.
 
i'd say that currently, the measure is the quality of life for the working poor. i would like it to be the number of people moved out of poverty, but that requires better access to higher education and job training programs than we have now. and let's face it : we're approaching a post labor economy step by step, and there aren't enough new industries to pick up the slack, as factories did when farming became mechanized.
 
lizzie said:
The only measure of success is in how many people can improve their own lives, and rise above poverty. If you are merely being funded, then you haven't fixed anything- just thrown money at it. The basic and underlying problem is still there.
Click to expand...

I think that Stossel said a few years ago that the government spends $40,000 a year per person on welfare and that if you just cut that person a check for $40,000 a year instead they would be out of poverty. Instead they spend $40,000 a year to give a person $20,000 a year, or whatever meagre amount actually gets to the welfare recipient. :roll:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that Stossel said a few years ago that the government spends $40,000 a year per person on welfare and that if you just cut that person a check for $40,000 a year instead they would be out of poverty. Instead they spend $40,000 a year to give a person $20,000 a year, or whatever meagre amount actually gets to the welfare recipient. :roll:
Click to expand...

That wouldn't surprise me, but the actual problem still hasn't been solved, which is the one of WHY so many people stay in poverty. With the opportunities for education and entrepreneurship in this country, I'd think we'd have a better track record than we do. We just keep throwing money at it, rather than addressing the root cause(s).
 
lizzie said:
That wouldn't surprise me, but the actual problem still hasn't been solved, which is the one of WHY so many people stay in poverty. With the opportunities for education and entrepreneurship in this country, I'd think we'd have a better track record than we do. We just keep throwing money at it, rather than addressing the root cause(s).
Click to expand...

I think that in many cases the root cause is lack of understanding due to various factors including education or intelligence and more than anything a combination of the two. We have 315 million people and if you look at IQ statistics half of the population has an IQ under 99 or lower. That is perhaps 150 million people. Take a portion of that that have IQ and little education in the 93 and under range and it could be around 30-50 million people. No amount of anything will get these people into entrepreneurship programs and it is unrealistic (not you, the P.C. people and politicians) to insist that it is a doable thing. Same thing in education, as you are probably well aware of. We can NOT teach all kids. Some just won't be able to pass tests, etc. Just a fact of life that gets the administration or other teachers on your back if you even dare to mention it as a possibility. ;)
 
lizzie said:
That wouldn't surprise me, but the actual problem still hasn't been solved, which is the one of WHY so many people stay in poverty. With the opportunities for education and entrepreneurship in this country, I'd think we'd have a better track record than we do. We just keep throwing money at it, rather than addressing the root cause(s).
Click to expand...

Welcome to Black America. To me, that's really what the War on Poverty entails now anyways.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not only do the poor vote "correctly" but they support candidates that increase government spending and power. All "wars" have their supporters inside govenrment and entire indistries that depend on the resulting government spending. Low wage workers, and those that employ them, now enjoy the moronic "safety net" spending that supplements those wages - why pay a "living wage" if the government will do so (instead?) using other people's money?
 
The war on poverty should be about making sure educational opportunities are opened for everyone including early childhood education. It 'a sad when kids start school in kindergarten already far behind their peers and a very high bar has been set. Statics show us they never really catch up in the long run. We need to get them young in order to maximize their literacy and language skills. Also, we need to offer more job training opportunities for those who lose their jobs in fields that are displaced for whatever reason. We also shouldn't allow wealthy corporations to shift their profit margins on to the tax payer for a full days labor. A standard should be set so certain corps don't abuse the system. Lastly, all students capable and wanting to pursue a secondary education should not have affordability keep them from reaching their full potential.
 
Redress said:
I voted Death Star since Death Star-Tan is cute.

I do not think you can end poverty, nor should that even be a particular goal. I think the idea behind safety nets is to ensure a basic level of substance living to those who need it. I further think government programs that help people get off the safety net so they can get themselves out of poverty are good(in general and theory, some programs through poor design or implementation may be bad programs themselves). How do you measure the success? Not sure there is a good answer to that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TeleKat said:
If your goal is to substantially reduce or end poverty than the only logical conclusion is that you'd have to actually get people out of poverty. Throwing money at the problem or making the impoverished comfortable are counterproductive at best to the goal.
Click to expand...

Your post reminded me of this quote from Ben Franklin;


“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think there is some truth to that regarding the Democrat politicians, but most, just ordinary liberal people I know would like to see people provide for themselves where possible. The disagreement between ideologies, I think, what "where possible" means. Conservatives tend to think that "where possible" means just that, if it's possible it's what should be expected. If it takes two jobs or selling your car, then that's what you do. Liberals, from my experience, tend to be in favor of subsidizing "comfortable" living with the hopes that that person will take advantage of that time, maybe get some sort of skill or job training so that they don't have to take two jobs or sell the car or whatever.
 
I don't see any government programs targetting "breakout industries," or new businesses that have dynamic potential. The gov't gave trillions to the "too big to fail" banks and that has fattened the fat cats and squeezed the majority population. If it is a war to create poverty, like our war to create terror, then it is definitely working. I just read that 35% of USA households are in debt collection. The gov't should be funding renewables, Global Warming mitigation, start up vocational tech schools, start up home schooling programs leading to entrepreneurship opportunities instead of subsidizing Nukes, Big Old Energy, Big Old Banks, Big War Industries, Big Old Money in gerneral, or more correctly, the status quo of the money that controls our politicians. I vote Green. Perhaps a wasted vote. Perhaps the only realistic alternative. Yes, that poverty war is working good for the one tenth of the one percent pushing to squash labor and get the children back to work in the factories. Charlie Chaplin was blackballed for thinking this way.
 
jet57 said:
I'm choosing # 4. We have to water the entire garden in this country. When we care for the garden - everything grows. We have no more jobs. We threw over the American dream for dividends. So what we wind up with is feeding a bunch of cattle that can't be milked and are no good for anything else. The Greeks referred to these people as nationalists. We did it, so bitching about the results is kind of - silly.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you seem familiar to me. Oh, and total eye roll at the "watering the entire garden" nonsense.
 
Helix said:
i'd say that currently, the measure is the quality of life for the working poor. i would like it to be the number of people moved out of poverty, but that requires better access to higher education and job training programs than we have now. and let's face it : we're approaching a post labor economy step by step, and there aren't enough new industries to pick up the slack, as factories did when farming became mechanized.
Click to expand...

And how about the quality of living for the non working poor? Do we concern ourselves with them?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that Stossel said a few years ago that the government spends $40,000 a year per person on welfare and that if you just cut that person a check for $40,000 a year instead they would be out of poverty. Instead they spend $40,000 a year to give a person $20,000 a year, or whatever meagre amount actually gets to the welfare recipient. :roll:
Click to expand...

That's true. The other $20k is used to fund the administration of the program. That is messed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom