Failure of the Welfare State

[NYcarbineer]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

If you can demonstrate how things would be better if there were no poverty programs, then by all means do so.

No food stamps, no Medicaid, no cash assistance, no housing subsidies/assistance, no student assistance, no increases in the minimum wage, no EIC, etc.,

...show us how poor/low income Americans would be better off.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claim.

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

You don't want to eliminate all? Just some?

Okay, then tell us what percent of, let's start with food stamps and Medicaid, we should eliminate,

that will produce a reduction in poverty.

And elaborate on how it will happen.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Did anyone ever name a nation that is NOT a 'welfare state' that is doing better than the United States?

I'm guessing 'no' is the answer.

This is the fundamental problem with conservatism. Conservatives complain about progressive policies and conditions that they label 'failures' and yet,

they have nothing better to offer.

Since poverty didn't disappear completely because of liberal poverty programs, that must mean 'failure', and yet the conservative 'answer' is,

eliminate all help to the poor, make them poorer, and somehow, by some secret magic process, never known to occur ever in the history of human society,

poverty WILL disappear completely.

Apparently, to be a conservative, you have to believe that sort of rubbish.

The Conservative motto should be,

We have no solutions, but put us in power as punishment of the Liberals for not being Perfect.

So your system really sucks but lets stay with it


No ideas- not really
some have suggested the negative income tax
interesting idea

Granted, it might eliminate the permanent co-dependency between the
poor and the Democrats

But no doubt that is a sacrifice you are willing to make



Truth is hard for the Left

Once again, you offer no better alternative.

In your opinion
but you still think Papa Obama is doing a good job
so it may not be worth much

 

[Neotrotsky]

If you can demonstrate how things would be better if there were no poverty programs, then by all means do so.

No food stamps, no Medicaid, no cash assistance, no housing subsidies/assistance, no student assistance, no increases in the minimum wage, no EIC, etc.,

...show us how poor/low income Americans would be better off.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claim.

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

You don't want to eliminate all? Just some?

Okay, then tell us what percent of, let's start with food stamps and Medicaid, we should eliminate,

that will produce a reduction in poverty.

And elaborate on how it will happen.

There is so much room to start

Let's see,,,,,
-We spend about 13 times the amount today on welfare then in the 1960's
-Papa Obama increased Federal Spending on anti-poverty programs 41% (668 billion)
combined with state/local expenditures to 284 billion
Why that is more than even defense spending

-Under Papa Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.


--------------------------------------

Sure, No room to cut anything....

Is is sad how soon the Left wanted to "throw in the towel" on the Iraq war
after a few years and call it a failure

yet

Almost 50 years on the Great Society's "war on poverty" has failed
but they still won't "throw in the towel"

It almost seems like the Left and the Democrats have a vested interest
in keeping the status quo

funny how that works

 

[Bfgrn]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

Was it ever promised to end poverty, or just make it more tolerable?

The problem isn't the welfare state, it's the vanishing of middle class jobs and salaries.

There will always be that part of society who suffer from what Heinlein called the "Socialist disease" - the belief the world owes you a living.

The problem with our modern economic system is that it pits people perfectly willing to work for their keep against each other for increasingly smaller slices of the pie.

if we don't address that, things are going to get ugly very soon.

Sure it was, when he was trying to sell the Great Society


President Johnson had introduced his vision of a “great society” in a May 22, 1964 speech: “The great society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or if you prefer

“In our lifetime, we will wipe out poverty in America"-so said
Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Many of the promises made on this program have not delivered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three generations on welfare is saying
the system does not work

Pie smaller, shrinking middle class....

It is too be expected when you have a growing dependent class

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person can live better not working, say at a low wage
then why would they?

The system today has turned into a voting getting machine
and away from the goal of "ending poverty"

Really, take any man give a job that is not dependent on gov't funds
make him pay taxes- he tends to be more conservative

The 'War on Poverty' was not a handout program.

The 'War on Poverty' was the idea of a man many conservatives try to claim as one of their own...President John F. Kennedy. He was also the man behind Medicare. He planned to make poverty a central issue in the forthcoming campaign against Barry Goldwater. President Kennedy made fighting poverty a priority of his political agenda. In 1963, his administration conducted studies on race, poverty and unemployment resulting in a national program and social service legislation to help counter poverty. After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson embraced the initiative and formalized it as the War on Poverty.

The Economic Opportunity Act ('War on Poverty') embodied education, training programs, job opportunities and healthcare services rather than financial assistance or income guarantees. The EOA stated, “Although the economic well-being and prosperity of the United States have progressed to a level surpassing any achieved in world history, and although these benefits are widely shared throughout the Nation, poverty continues to be the lot of a substantial number of our people. … It is, therefore, the policy of this Nation to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in this Nation by opening to everyone the opportunity for education and training, the opportunity to work, and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity.”

The War on Poverty did not call for redistribution of wealth to redress the “paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty.” Historian James T. Patterson has written, “the poverty program, like other government efforts of the early 1960s, reflected a conservative application of structuralist observations. The planners recognized that millions of the so-called new poor were not in the labor force, that they need income maintenance more than opportunity. They knew that formidable structural forces like technological change, shortages of decent paying jobs and racial discrimination blocked the opportunities of many who were willing and able to work.” As Harrington put it, “There never was a massive investment of billions of dollars in radical innovations that challenged the very structure of power in the United States.” The power structure of American capitalism and its accompanying socio-economic stratification remained intact, as they continue today.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The War on Poverty is like Papa Obama

isn't working

 

[NYcarbineer]

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

You don't want to eliminate all? Just some?

Okay, then tell us what percent of, let's start with food stamps and Medicaid, we should eliminate,

that will produce a reduction in poverty.

And elaborate on how it will happen.

There is so much room to start

Let's see,,,,,
-We spend about 13 times the amount today on welfare then in the 1960's
-Papa Obama increased Federal Spending on anti-poverty programs 41% (668 billion)
combined with state/local expenditures to 284 billion
Why that is more than even defense spending

-Under Papa Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.


--------------------------------------

Sure, No room to cut anything....

Is is sad how soon the Left wanted to "throw in the towel" on the Iraq war
after a few years and call it a failure

yet

Almost 50 years on the Great Society's "war on poverty" has failed
but they still won't "throw in the towel"

It almost seems like the Left and the Democrats have a vested interest
in keeping the status quo

funny how that works

Once again no answer.

Your claim is that cutting poverty programs will reduce poverty. Now make some semblance of a case for it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Was it ever promised to end poverty, or just make it more tolerable?

The problem isn't the welfare state, it's the vanishing of middle class jobs and salaries.

There will always be that part of society who suffer from what Heinlein called the "Socialist disease" - the belief the world owes you a living.

The problem with our modern economic system is that it pits people perfectly willing to work for their keep against each other for increasingly smaller slices of the pie.

if we don't address that, things are going to get ugly very soon.

Sure it was, when he was trying to sell the Great Society


President Johnson had introduced his vision of a “great society” in a May 22, 1964 speech: “The great society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or if you prefer

“In our lifetime, we will wipe out poverty in America"-so said
Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Many of the promises made on this program have not delivered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three generations on welfare is saying
the system does not work

Pie smaller, shrinking middle class....

It is too be expected when you have a growing dependent class

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person can live better not working, say at a low wage
then why would they?

The system today has turned into a voting getting machine
and away from the goal of "ending poverty"

Really, take any man give a job that is not dependent on gov't funds
make him pay taxes- he tends to be more conservative

The pie is not getting smaller because the dependent class is growing. It's getting smaller because the wealthy are taking bigger and bigger slices.

1% of the population controls 42% of the wealth in this country. The top 10% controls 90% of the wealth. And the rest of us, working schlubs and folks who sit at home watching Jerry Springer, are down here at the bottom fighting over the last 10% of the pie.

I agree that making a guy a taxpayer makes him trend more conservative, but that's the problem. That's not been the goal of the Mitt Romneys of the world. They've downsized, offshored and Six-Sigmaed the Middle Class out of existence, pretty much.

Congratulations, that has to be the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

For taking the bigger bite, you need to explain the reduced numbers of the 1%s

 

[Neotrotsky]

You don't want to eliminate all? Just some?

Okay, then tell us what percent of, let's start with food stamps and Medicaid, we should eliminate,

that will produce a reduction in poverty.

And elaborate on how it will happen.

There is so much room to start

Let's see,,,,,
-We spend about 13 times the amount today on welfare then in the 1960's
-Papa Obama increased Federal Spending on anti-poverty programs 41% (668 billion)
combined with state/local expenditures to 284 billion
Why that is more than even defense spending

-Under Papa Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.


--------------------------------------

Sure, No room to cut anything....

Is is sad how soon the Left wanted to "throw in the towel" on the Iraq war
after a few years and call it a failure

yet

Almost 50 years on the Great Society's "war on poverty" has failed
but they still won't "throw in the towel"

It almost seems like the Left and the Democrats have a vested interest
in keeping the status quo

funny how that works

Once again no answer.

Your claim is that cutting poverty programs will reduce poverty. Now make some semblance of a case for it.

Again

in your opinion but since you think
Papa Obama is doing a good job
it means little

Unlike you. I'm just stating facts like
that before the Great Society

Blacks had a lower divorce rate and lower illegitimate rate than whites


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[PoliticalChic]

Words that disqualify you from any reasonable argument.

Communist. Marxist. Socialist.

Once those words pop up in a rebuttal, you are no longer a serious contender for my time. Sorry.

Hit a nerve, did I?

OK....see ya'.

Yeah, it's the nerve that gets annoyed when butt-kissers justify their butt-kissing.

Oooo....gettin' nasty.

No greater proof of the inadequacy of your worldview is necessary.

 

[The T]

The War on Poverty is like Papa Obama

isn't working

It has gotten worse since LBJ signed it into law.

Statists can't hide from history, nor can they HIDE history.

Sure they can re-write it...

 

[Bfgrn]

The War on Poverty is like Papa Obama

isn't working

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

 

[Neotrotsky]

The War on Poverty is like Papa Obama

isn't working

It has gotten worse since LBJ signed it into law.

Statists can't hide from history, nor can they HIDE history.

Sure they can re-write it...

They threw in the towel on Iraq war after a few
years and wanted to call it a failure

Yet almost 50 years on with the War on Poverty with its failing
and they want to keep it going the way it is or even spend more

funny how that works

 

[JoeB131]

Hit a nerve, did I?

OK....see ya'.

Yeah, it's the nerve that gets annoyed when butt-kissers justify their butt-kissing.

Oooo....gettin' nasty.

No greater proof of the inadequacy of your worldview is necessary.

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

The status quo wouldn't exist without people like you licking the boots...

There really are more of us than them, it's only a problem when some of us side with them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, it's the nerve that gets annoyed when butt-kissers justify their butt-kissing.

Oooo....gettin' nasty.

No greater proof of the inadequacy of your worldview is necessary.

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

The status quo wouldn't exist without people like you licking the boots...

There really are more of us than them, it's only a problem when some of us side with them.

You've certainly dropped a level or two in civility.

Let me make this perfectly clear: You are not able to intimidate me.

I will continue to expose frauds like you.

And...I will dominate you with both knowledge and analysis and make clear why the 'big government panhandlers' like you are, who see other folks earnings as a eat-all-you wish buffet table, no different from any other garden-variety socialists/Marxists.


And I will do it without referring to you with the vulgar terminology to which you sink.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

If you can demonstrate how things would be better if there were no poverty programs, then by all means do so.

No food stamps, no Medicaid, no cash assistance, no housing subsidies/assistance, no student assistance, no increases in the minimum wage, no EIC, etc.,

...show us how poor/low income Americans would be better off.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claim.

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

The government didn't begin tracking the percentage of the population living in poverty until 1959.

 

[JoeB131]

You've certainly dropped a level or two in civility.

Let me make this perfectly clear: You are not able to intimidate me.

I will continue to expose frauds like you.

And...I will dominate you with both knowledge and analysis and make clear why the 'big government panhandlers' like you are, who see other folks earnings as a eat-all-you wish buffet table, no different from any other garden-variety socialists/Marxists.

And I will do it without referring to you with the vulgar terminology to which you sink.

No, nothing intimidates a bootlicker.... you've already been cowed a long time ago.

I'm not civil to stupid people. Not complete idiots who say things like Calvin Cooldige was a great president.

Fact is, no matter how often you scrape and beg, you're just their for them to wipe their shoes on... Until you get up off your knees and stop putting up with it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

If you can demonstrate how things would be better if there were no poverty programs, then by all means do so.

No food stamps, no Medicaid, no cash assistance, no housing subsidies/assistance, no student assistance, no increases in the minimum wage, no EIC, etc.,

...show us how poor/low income Americans would be better off.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claim.

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

The government didn't begin tracking the percentage of the population living in poverty until 1959.

You mean the US Census- sure
But rates are estimates, just like the Census

If they are wrong please offer some
examples

 

[Bfgrn]

More hyper response
Like the war on women crap

Did anyone say no programs- no

From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-

how did they do it



the Great Society is like Papa Obama

is not working

unless you count a permanent underclass that is dependent on
democrats and democrats on their vote
as "working"

The government didn't begin tracking the percentage of the population living in poverty until 1959.

You mean the US Census- sure
But rates are estimates, just like the Census

If they are wrong please offer some
examples

WHERE did you get your "From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-"

Provide a LINK.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The government didn't begin tracking the percentage of the population living in poverty until 1959.

You mean the US Census- sure
But rates are estimates, just like the Census

If they are wrong please offer some
examples

WHERE did you get your "From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-"

Provide a LINK.

Can't you do your own work
Liberals are so lazy

Please if you have something else show me

Do you think it was less or more

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean the US Census- sure
But rates are estimates, just like the Census

If they are wrong please offer some
examples

WHERE did you get your "From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-"

Provide a LINK.

Can't you do your own work
Liberals are so lazy

Please if you have something else show me

Do you think it was less or more

So you made that number up.

...this is my shocked face...