• 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
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

I'm pretty sure that the Obama White House purged the social service worker for not giving the bear food stamps.
 
Paul Ryans first job was at McDonalds, and he worked for a construction company.

Tell us about Obama and Hillary's jobs. :2wave:

Scuttlebutt is Obama as a teenager to get money to buy Maui Waui, Obama had a part time job scooping ice cream. I think he got fired.

As for Hillary's early career.
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff:

Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Hillary Rodham Clinton History
 
`
My point went zooming over your head my friend....here's the original statement;



The entire statement is false, if not an outright lie. Surly only a complete fool would agree with it. You reply only voiced more unproven suppositions, again, with no facts.
`
`

rgXIHQ8.jpg

It's not a lie.

How many times has the Obama White House and certain Democrats in Congress gloated and were proud to announce publicly on how many people today are receiving food stamps ?

If Democrats were serious about fighting poverty, why do they support importing poverty from third world countries ? Since the IRA of 1965 all we have been allowing is poverty to enter America. May explain why Democrats refuse to support any Republican comprehensive immigration reform that calls for securing our borders first before initiating awarding criminals with amnesty.
 
It's not a lie.How many times has the Obama White House and certain Democrats in Congress gloated and were proud to announce publicly on how many people today are receiving food stamps ?If Democrats were serious about fighting poverty, why do they support importing poverty from third world countries ? Since the IRA of 1965 all we have been allowing is poverty to enter America. May explain why Democrats refuse to support any Republican comprehensive immigration reform that calls for securing our borders first before initiating awarding criminals with amnesty.
`
Proof? Facts? You provided none.
 
I don't see a "War on Poverty", I see a "War for Money".
 
I don't see a "War on Poverty", I see a "War for Money".

The nice thing about this is that with everyone trying to do best for themselves we have done a huge job fighting poverty on a global scale.
 
you cannot have a war on poverty. Just as you cannot have a war on drugs.
 
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.

The reality is, we don't have a war on poverty, we never have. We have a media campaign on poverty. We talk about it a lot. We don't actually do anything about it. Like all of the other social wars we declare, we will never actually accomplish anything because we don't have the will to do what it takes, it's all about the agenda, not the solution.
 
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?

Benjamin Franklin was completely correct when he said “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” The poor do that constantly and the left is based around keeping them happy, but also keeping them poor and dependent.
 
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.

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.
 
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 number of people that we have helped out of starvation poverty has been gigantic since 1990. We have been hugely successfull at it.
 
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.

But they don't, that's the thing. If they did, they wouldn't keep voting to provide more and more government handouts. So long as the poor can get more money for food, shelter and big screen TVs, they'll never do anything for themselves because they don't have to. Liberals have been telling the poor that it's not their fault, society is to blame for their situation and if only there was more money to give to them, they wouldn't feel so bad. No, in almost all situations, the only person to blame is the individual who didn't take advantage of the benefits we already provide, to make something of themselves.
 
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.
 
This was supposed to be an adult conservation ....I think poorly of such childish remarks .

Yeah, then maybe liberals ought to grow up and realize that the only way out of poverty is for the poor to become personally responsible for their lives. I know that's anathema to liberals, you don't like it that conservatives know exactly what you're doing.
 
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.

How do you exploit people who don't want to work? How does a corporation exploit someone who has no money to buy their products? Nobody is saying let them starve, we are saying that they have to be held accountable for their choices and their actions and society has to do more than just handing over a check every month. You will never better yourself if you aren't required to do so. So long as there are no strings attached, no requirements to stop getting that check, things will never change. Yes, many full time workers are poor and they suffer from a lot of the same problems that the unemployed poor do. They have made poor decisions and have shot themselves in the foot and may never dig their way out. They lack personal responsibility for their actions, a hallmark of conservatism.
 
The nice thing about this is that with everyone trying to do best for themselves we have done a huge job fighting poverty on a global scale.

It's simply an incorrect way of phrasing a situation. Nobody is intentionally trying to make anyone else poor, as much as they're trying to make themselves rich. They'll just do it the expense of others and say, "that's the way the game is played." And though thru this system we've raised the quality of life for the global majority, we seem to be hitting a tipping point of going over the peak back down towards a struggle for the masses. And it's going to get messy.
 
Ummm..btw, the official poverty line for America (outside of Hawaii and Alaska) in 2014 is $11,670.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

$7.25 times 2,000 hours a year equals $14,500.

Want to fight poverty?

Get a full time job at a McDonald's.

Problem solved.
 
It's simply an incorrect way of phrasing a situation. Nobody is intentionally trying to make anyone else poor, as much as they're trying to make themselves rich. They'll just do it the expense of others and say, "that's the way the game is played." And though thru this system we've raised the quality of life for the global majority, we seem to be hitting a tipping point of going over the peak back down towards a struggle for the masses. And it's going to get messy.

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.
 
`
My point went zooming over your head my friend....here's the original statement;



The entire statement is false, if not an outright lie. Surly only a complete fool would agree with it. You reply only voiced more unproven suppositions, again, with no facts.
`
`

rgXIHQ8.jpg


Not really. Stealing from productive people and making others dependent on the government isn't how to eliminate poverty. Poverty was falling at a rate of 1% a year until the war on poverty started-and it was intended by LBJ to be a form of reparations to American blacks.
 
Scuttlebutt is Obama as a teenager to get money to buy Maui Waui, Obama had a part time job scooping ice cream. I think he got fired.

As for Hillary's early career.
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff:

Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Hillary Rodham Clinton History

Its almost like the left is trying to diminish their argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom