Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[NYcarbineer]

The poor will always be with us.

The idea is, like Franklin said, not to enable the poor to be comfortable and complacent in their poverty.

So it's like I said the other day, the greater the gap between rich and poor in a society, the better that society is functioning,

from the conservative, laissez-faire, market based perspective.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The poor will always be with us.

The idea is, like Franklin said, not to enable the poor to be comfortable and complacent in their poverty.

So it's like I said the other day, the greater the gap between rich and poor in a society, the better that society is functioning,

from the conservative, laissez-faire, market based perspective.

That is not what Franklin was saying. What he was saying is that people will not typically endeavor to get out of poverty while they are comfortable in it. Hey... you think there's a correlation between the unemployment rate and never ending unemployment checks?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK...

Let's end Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, subsidized housing, earned income credit, progressive income taxation, heat/energy assistance programs, public school, the minimum wage, every needs based program funded by government, and whatever else I'm leaving out.

There, now they're all gone.

Tell us, how long before we then see a substantial reduction in the amount of poverty in this country?

Don't laugh, this is what conservatives are claiming.

It may not be reduced, but the working people will no longer be enabling and subsidizing it. How is poverty reduced by someone spending their entire lives on the dole at the poverty level?

Jeeesh.

What society has ever solved the poverty problem by neglecting the poor?

Do you really want to create a whole new massive underclass of extremely poor people in this country,

people who get nothing from the government whatsoever?

Can you think of any places around the world where such an underclass exists? Does it look like a condition worthy of imitation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The poor will always be with us.

The idea is, like Franklin said, not to enable the poor to be comfortable and complacent in their poverty.

So it's like I said the other day, the greater the gap between rich and poor in a society, the better that society is functioning,

from the conservative, laissez-faire, market based perspective.

That is not what Franklin was saying. What he was saying is that people will not typically endeavor to get out of poverty while they are comfortable in it. Hey... you think there's a correlation between the unemployment rate and never ending unemployment checks?

If the gap between rich and poor isn't large, it means that the poor are being artificially propped up economically. That is anathema to conservatives.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

OK...

Let's end Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, subsidized housing, earned income credit, progressive income taxation, heat/energy assistance programs, public school, the minimum wage, every needs based program funded by government, and whatever else I'm leaving out.

There, now they're all gone.

Tell us, how long before we then see a substantial reduction in the amount of poverty in this country?

Don't laugh, this is what conservatives are claiming.

It may not be reduced, but the working people will no longer be enabling and subsidizing it. How is poverty reduced by someone spending their entire lives on the dole at the poverty level?

Jeeesh.

What society has ever solved the poverty problem by neglecting the poor?

Do you really want to create a whole new massive underclass of extremely poor people in this country,

people who get nothing from the government whatsoever?

Can you think of any places around the world where such an underclass exists? Does it look like a condition worthy of imitation?

i certainly don't advocate poverty, why would I? I was raised by the notion that "nobody owes you anything". Unfortunately, we don't address the causes of poverty, only the symptoms, through transfer payments. Poverty isn't the problem, the causes of poverty are the reall issues that require attention.

It doesn't solve anything. I have no problem with government assistance, but when you have generation after generation living at the poverty level and on public assistance. It's time for a new approach. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Foxfyre]

It may not be reduced, but the working people will no longer be enabling and subsidizing it. How is poverty reduced by someone spending their entire lives on the dole at the poverty level?

Jeeesh.

What society has ever solved the poverty problem by neglecting the poor?

Do you really want to create a whole new massive underclass of extremely poor people in this country,

people who get nothing from the government whatsoever?

Can you think of any places around the world where such an underclass exists? Does it look like a condition worthy of imitation?

i certainly don't advocate poverty, why would I? I was raised by the notion that "nobody owes you anything". Unfortunately, we don't address the causes of poverty, only the symptoms, through transfer payments. Poverty isn't the problem, the causes of poverty are the reall issues that require attention.

It doesn't solve anything. I have no problem with government assistance, but when you have generation after generation living at the poverty level and on public assistance. It's time for a new approach. That's all I'm saying.

As a very small child, I once lived in a house for almost a year when the Army lost our furniture and we couldn't afford to replace it. (The folks were civilian employees.) It probably sucked for the folks, but I liked our apple crate chairs, borrowed lumpy mattresses on the floor for beds, and lots and lots of room to push my marble armies around.

We didn't ever go hungry, but until she died, whenever my mother came to visit and I was sure there was nothing whatsoever to eat in the house, she would rummage around in the cabinet, find a package of crackers, a can of this, a serving of leftovers of that and the next thing we knew she had a full dinner on the table. People who used their resourcefulness to survive the Great Depression could do things like that.

When we were first married, Mr. Foxfyre and I sometimes had two to five different jobs just to keep a rented roof over our heads and literally beans on the table, one car, and could afford absolutely no luxuries, but we paid federal income taxes, received no government benefits, and had a great time with our friends most of whom were pretty much in the same boat. It never occurred to us that we were poor or that somebody ought to do something for us. We always believed that hard work and determination would make it better.

It did. For us and all our friends. Some prospered more than others but all prospered. And our children have all prospered too.

A moral society does give a hand up to the fallen and takes care of the truly poor and helpless. But a moral society does not make indentured servants of its people, encourage dependency, create whole classes of permanently unemployed. The federal government I'm afraid does do that.

There are much more constructive ways to approach it.

 

[rightwinger]

There is always the Republican solution to poverty

Give money to the wealthy and let it "Tinkle Down"

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that has been a problem with both Democrats and Republicans for a long long time now RW. Perhaps that is why most of the stimulus money went to very rich Americans rather than to create jobs for the unemployed and therefore poor.

The conservative approach is to empower the poor to become more prosperous, and prosperity then bubbles up.

Think about that as an alternative for awhile.

 

[skookerasbil]

11 trillion dollars later.....................

TIMES UP S0NS!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

There is always the Republican solution to poverty

Give money to the wealthy and let it "Tinkle Down"

Hey s0n........take a gandor over to your search engine and find a map on the election results from two months ago.


Enormous amounts of red on that shit s0n!!!!

Perhaps you missed the memo??

 

[rightwinger]

I think that has been a problem with both Democrats and Republicans for a long long time now RW. Perhaps that is why most of the stimulus money went to very rich Americans rather than to create jobs for the unemployed and therefore poor.

The conservative approach is to empower the poor to become more prosperous, and prosperity then bubbles up.

Think about that as an alternative for awhile.

Works for me..

ALL of the Stimulus should have gone for job creation. Allocating 40% for tax cuts is just buying votes

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that has been a problem with both Democrats and Republicans for a long long time now RW. Perhaps that is why most of the stimulus money went to very rich Americans rather than to create jobs for the unemployed and therefore poor.

The conservative approach is to empower the poor to become more prosperous, and prosperity then bubbles up.

Think about that as an alternative for awhile.

Works for me..

ALL of the Stimulus should have gone for job creation. Allocating 40% for tax cuts is just buying votes

Not one dime of the stimulus money went for tax cuts. You don't buy tax cuts.

Had there been no healthcare overhaul, had there been no stimulus package, had there been no truly indefensible appropriations bills passed to reward cronies, and had the government focused on a positive tax and regulation policy to encourage business to resume investing, buying, hiring, and negotiating contracts, we would be well out of the recession right now.

But they didn't do that did they? They continue to think that more and more oppressive government regulation and the government taking and using and manipulating more and more resources won't continue to have horrendous negative effects on the spirits and prosperity of the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

I asked everybody to study that graph in the OP.

Did anybody notice that poverty rates were dramatically plummeting BEFORE LBJ's War on Poverty program was announced and initiated? And we haven't seen anything that dramatic since?

Shouldn't that be at least a little bit instructive?

 

[rightwinger]

I think that has been a problem with both Democrats and Republicans for a long long time now RW. Perhaps that is why most of the stimulus money went to very rich Americans rather than to create jobs for the unemployed and therefore poor.

The conservative approach is to empower the poor to become more prosperous, and prosperity then bubbles up.

Think about that as an alternative for awhile.

Works for me..

ALL of the Stimulus should have gone for job creation. Allocating 40% for tax cuts is just buying votes

Not one dime of the stimulus money went for tax cuts. You don't buy tax cuts.

Had there been no healthcare overhaul, had there been no stimulus package, had there been no truly indefensible appropriations bills passed to reward cronies, and had the government focused on a positive tax and regulation policy to encourage business to resume investing, buying, hiring, and negotiating contracts, we would be well out of the recession right now.

But they didn't do that did they? They continue to think that more and more oppressive government regulation and the government taking and using and manipulating more and more resources won't continue to have horrendous negative effects on the spirits and prosperity of the people.

Those tax cuts came out of our hide in direct payouts to taxpayers. The tax cuts did not create jobs.

Everything else you posted is just conjecture and Monday Morning Quarterbacking

 

[Zander]

Here's an idea for the poor people. Stop smoking cigarettes, stop buying lottery tickets, stop drinking alcohol, Stop having babies, stop making bad decisions. Maybe after a while you won't be so poor?

 

[code1211]

Works for me..

ALL of the Stimulus should have gone for job creation. Allocating 40% for tax cuts is just buying votes

Not one dime of the stimulus money went for tax cuts. You don't buy tax cuts.

Had there been no healthcare overhaul, had there been no stimulus package, had there been no truly indefensible appropriations bills passed to reward cronies, and had the government focused on a positive tax and regulation policy to encourage business to resume investing, buying, hiring, and negotiating contracts, we would be well out of the recession right now.

But they didn't do that did they? They continue to think that more and more oppressive government regulation and the government taking and using and manipulating more and more resources won't continue to have horrendous negative effects on the spirits and prosperity of the people.

Those tax cuts came out of our hide in direct payouts to taxpayers. The tax cuts did not create jobs.

Everything else you posted is just conjecture and Monday Morning Quarterbacking

You're right.

It's not Nancy's fault. She can't fix anything but voting results. Nancy can only create multi demensional, big cost, ineffective, ill aimed, poorly executed, money wasting, confusing, half baked, comprimised delusions based on lies, misdirection and ideological slogans.

Let's pose a problem that needs a solution:

It becomes apparent that a car won't stop quickly enough.

The Nancy Pelosi Multi-Step Comprehensive Initiative to Eliminate the Dangers Posed by a Car That Does Not Stop Quickly Enough and Save the Children:

Re-pave all roads,
put a canopy over the roads to prevent the danger of slick pavement,
post signs to warn that the cars can't stop quickly,
build fences with access points and paint in cross walks,
increase the fines for not stopping,
make not stopping a Hate Crime,
encourage everyone to buy green zero emission cars,
provide tax credits for the purchase of solar panels,
mount a PR campaign against Rush Limbaugh because he can stop his car and finally provide funds for counseling for the driver so he will understand that stopping is just something he will never be able to do.

Overall cost? About a Trillion dollars.

A sane person might examine another option which would be to fix the brakes for about $500.00.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that the poverty line was reduced to about half years before Reagan came to office and the definitions and categories changed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Not one dime of the stimulus money went for tax cuts. You don't buy tax cuts.

.

The cost of stimulus bill that everyone cites, especially the opponents, was about 750 billion dollars.
That number was achieved by the CBO including the 300 billion in tax cuts as a 'cost', i.e., a loss of that much revenue.

450 billion in spending + 300 billion in tax cuts = 750 billion.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's an idea for the poor people. Stop smoking cigarettes, stop buying lottery tickets, stop drinking alcohol, Stop having babies, stop making bad decisions. Maybe after a while you won't be so poor?


]

You forgot..... Stop paying the rent, stop heating your home, stop getting sick, stop dreaming about educating your kids

 

[chanel]

I honestly believe that a good education is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. Yet what we see in poor school districts is a focus on social programs and not education. I don't think the intent is deliberate and sinister; but I do think the result is. "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

Well intentioned school personnel pass kids along because "they are a nice kid". Or because they are a bad kid. Or because they need to make the numbers...

A high school diploma is often considered "just a piece of paper". How unfair is that to those who actually earn it.? And how unfair to the people who are paying for it.